This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Discussion Post #5 What do you think about the different standards for defamation and defamation of public figures? Explain your thoughts. Defamation in itself is very confusing, whether for a public figure or not. There are many different ways to look at defamation. Defamation must be expressly stated or implied to be factual; it would be hard to prove if it was an epithet, hyperbole, or just an opinion. Then again not all opinions are created as equals; some opinions of a person may be confused as a fact. The First Amendment guarantees every person the right to criticize public men (and women) and measures and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation. In my opinion, defamation should not be excluded by the First Amendment based on a person being a public figure. Just because they are in the lime light should not give the right to say it must be actual malice. A false statement that appears true, whether an individual or a public figure, defamation can still destroy that persons reputation, and be harmful to their career (possibly a tort) or personal life. Discussion Post #6 Flora Gonzalez visited a Wal-Mart store. While walking in a busy aisle from the store's cafeteria toward a refrigerator, Gonzalez stepped on some macaroni that came from the cafeteria. She slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to her back, shoulder, and knee. She filed a suit in a Texas state court against Wal-Mart, alleging that the injuries to her back, shoulder, and knee....
View Full Document
- Spring '10