Question
I sent a personal email the day before the election to friends, neighbors and people I knew through my children. It was a reminder to get out and vote with personal opinions of all four candidates. I mentioned the publisher of our local paper by name with one of the candidates. Someone in my email chain forwarded my private email to the publisher/editor. The publisher then copied the town officials and candidates demanding I apologize with threat of libel. The other official said she would forward it to her lawyer. Current officials/candidates were coerced to condemn and shame me. I feel my First Amendment rights were abridged when she used her public influence and government officials to silence and condemn me. I have no form of social media. I don’t know how my email was intercepted. I feel I should have a voice in America.
Answer
While we cannot provide you with specific legal advice through this service, we can provide you with some general information you might find helpful. Libel, which is also sometimes referred to as defamation or slander, is the general term for a legal claim involving injury to one’s reputation caused by a false statement of fact.
In general, statements of fact, as well as statements that are opinion, cannot support a libel or defamation claim. The crux of a defamation claim is falsity. Therefore, truth is one of the primary defenses to a libel claim because truthful statements that harm another’s reputation will not create liability for libel. There are additional defenses as well, including statements that are purely opinion and statements protected by some qualified or absolute privilege.
When it comes to libel and defamation, there is a higher standard for public figures. In contrast to private plaintiffs, who only need to demonstrate that a defendant acted negligently when saying or publishing a libelous statement, public officials and figures must demonstrate that a defendant acted with actual malice in order to prevail in a libel action. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 283 (1964). Actual
malice requires either proof that you knew the statement or implication was false or that you published it with reckless disregard for the truth.
With regard to whether your First Amendment rights are being abridged, the inquiry is one that is necessarily fact specific.
Unfortunately, the First Amendment Coalition does not have the resources to provide you with an in-depth analysis. If you feel like your free speech rights are being chilled, you should consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in First Amendment issues.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation. No attorney-client relationship has been formed by way of this response.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.