Legal Issue

[Hanno]

What part of the Constitution does defamation(libel/slander) violates?

[lamarr3]

Not even close, my friend.  Any more than your posting that defamation violates constitutional property rights.  Stick to your own profession.

[Huntingden]

All rights and remedies aren't derived from the Constitution.  As an example, your to possess a private-party agreement forced and/or even to prosecute and recover "problems" for its violation isn't on the basis of the Constitution.   It's a subject of what's referred to as "typical law"(derived from the English process of law). Similarly, your right not to be maliciously slandered/libeled by somebody distributing false information which is bad for you isn't CENTERED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!   It's a typical law right which hasbeen responded in The Usa by court decisions(and legal functions into a lesser degree) which explain the facts of when you can dominate in a slander/libel suit and when you can't(what you should display). Area of the dilemma here originates from the very fact that a constitutional right may arise in slander/libel cases.  Not the patients constitutional rights to become free of slander/libel but of the right of the culprit(opponent) to express whatever she said(that's: her first amendment right of Freedom of Presentation).  The circumstances have responded(and should solve whilst the problems arise) where the offenders right of free speech reaches(like  when talking in a public hearing, for instance, which occasionally enables more to be said free of the slander suit) and where the hurt party's rights not to be defamed is violated.  A handling Of those particular privileges... one a typical law right and another a constitutional right. Another confusing aspect is the fact that "property rights" may become a problem once the slander/libel doesn't simply injured status or upset self-esteem, but where it also causes an injury to an economic interest(such as for instance evoking the defamed individual to be refused some permit or honor of the deal).  Then you've significantly more than real slander/libel; then you also have a probable breach of constitutionally-protected "property rights"... but that's not your fundamental libel or slander case.  You may be deprived of one's "property rights" also, but not without "due process" and only payment(as in a condemnation or eminent domain using from the government). MAIN POINT HERE:  Your right to become free from defamation(libel/slander) isn't a Constitutional Right.  It's a right underneath the common-law as used and described by court decisions and some condition legal functions. PS... PUBLIC OFFICIAL.  The absolute most popular libel/slander event, Sullivan vs Ny Times, determined by america Supreme Court, handles the way the club to state defamation is significantly greater for public officials.  By seeking and holding public office, they're sport for a great deal to be mentioned about them(the facts which I'll not get into below).

[MacDomhnall]

I don't get the connection between someone's defamation of me to my freedom of speech.  Please explain.

[Jayvee]

It violates the First Amendment regarding free speech. See here for more information.

[Sproule]

Exactly the same method that you've a right to speak the mind, so to does every other individual have a right to speak his/her. It's once the other person or people conveys a declaration that is fake, expressively mentioned or suggested to be informative, that might damage the trustworthiness of someone, company, merchandise, team, government or country that it becomes defamation. Slander refers to verbal remarks, while libel refers to every other type of transmission such as for instance written terms or pictures. Many jurisdictions permit authorized measures, municipal and/or criminal, to prevent several types of defamation and retaliate against groundless complaint. Associated With defamation is public disclosure of private facts which occurs where one person shows data which isn't of public concern, and the discharge of which might offend an acceptable person. Unlike libel or slander, the fact is not really a protection for intrusion of privacy.

[Laine]

After seriously examining the issue, I concluded that a person has a property interest in his/her good name, and the Constitution(5th and 14th Amendments) prohibits a person from being deprived of property without due process of law.  Defamation would in other words deprive one of said rights.

[Lawford]

I'm not necessarily sure and I'm fairly sure it is not part of the Structure but it was judgment of the Supreme court.   For helpful data have a look at these websites:   http://www.legal-advice-library.info http://www.austin-texas-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com/austin-legal-services.htm http://www.san-diego-lawyer-attorney-personal-injuries-dui-vehicle-immigration.info http://sandiegolawyerforyou.com/san-diego-felony-law.htm http://www.san-antonio-texas-lawyers-attorneys-directory.com http://legal-advice-library.info/website

[linley81]

Defamation is a matter of state law and is NOT in the U.S. Constitution.

[favian]

The 9th Amendment may apply in such cases.