1 00:00:01,920 --> 00:00:04,320 Speaker 1: Welcome to brain Stuff, a production of I Heart Radio, 2 00:00:06,200 --> 00:00:11,039 Speaker 1: Hey brain Stuff Lauren Vogelbaum. Here, on its face, the 3 00:00:11,160 --> 00:00:15,360 Speaker 1: legal concept of defamation is not a particularly difficult one 4 00:00:15,400 --> 00:00:19,320 Speaker 1: to grasp. If you say something or publish something that 5 00:00:19,400 --> 00:00:25,960 Speaker 1: damages someone or something else's reputation, that's defamation. As with 6 00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:30,240 Speaker 1: anything surrounding the law, though that seemingly straightforward idea can 7 00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:35,880 Speaker 1: get complicated pretty quickly. Libel, slander, actual malice, the truth, 8 00:00:36,159 --> 00:00:40,480 Speaker 1: and who are what constitutes a public figure all impact 9 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:44,320 Speaker 1: whether defamation, in the eyes of Lady Justice, has actually 10 00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:48,199 Speaker 1: taken place. Those questions are also why the world is 11 00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:51,080 Speaker 1: up to its French callers and attorneys. We need them 12 00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:56,000 Speaker 1: just to straighten these things out. Still, remembering what has 13 00:00:56,040 --> 00:00:59,280 Speaker 1: to happen first for defamation to take place always helps 14 00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:06,119 Speaker 1: somebody's gut to get hurt. Here's how defamation works. Someone 15 00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,040 Speaker 1: makes a statement, the statement is published in one way 16 00:01:09,160 --> 00:01:13,240 Speaker 1: or another, the statement causes injury, the statement is found 17 00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:16,880 Speaker 1: to be false, and the statement does not fall into 18 00:01:16,920 --> 00:01:22,400 Speaker 1: a privileged or protected category. Examples of privileged or protected 19 00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:27,600 Speaker 1: statements include testimonies made during court trials, and sometimes statements 20 00:01:27,640 --> 00:01:31,640 Speaker 1: that are offered as opinions. Although that one's sticky. Simply 21 00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:34,920 Speaker 1: claiming that something is opinion is not automatically a shield 22 00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:38,680 Speaker 1: against defamation charges. The courts will look at the context 23 00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:42,920 Speaker 1: and substance of a statement too. There's no difference legally 24 00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:46,720 Speaker 1: between say, the statements John stole a hundred dollars from 25 00:01:46,720 --> 00:01:50,640 Speaker 1: the corner store last week and in my opinion, John 26 00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:53,160 Speaker 1: stole a hundred dollars from the corner store last week. 27 00:01:53,920 --> 00:01:59,840 Speaker 1: They both could be found libelous. But so the potentially 28 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:03,800 Speaker 1: defamatory statement in question can be made either orally, which 29 00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:07,600 Speaker 1: is called slander, or can be written, which is called libel. 30 00:02:08,600 --> 00:02:12,200 Speaker 1: In the old days, before publishing written work became as 31 00:02:12,200 --> 00:02:15,560 Speaker 1: easy as sending a tweet, a slander was not considered 32 00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:20,400 Speaker 1: quite as serious as libel. Saying something potentially defamatory in 33 00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:23,480 Speaker 1: a debate on the town hall steps just didn't reach 34 00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:26,320 Speaker 1: as many ears or eyes as the written word could. 35 00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:31,920 Speaker 1: But in these are modern times that has changed. We 36 00:02:31,960 --> 00:02:34,679 Speaker 1: spoke with Greg Lisby, a licensed attorney in the state 37 00:02:34,680 --> 00:02:37,519 Speaker 1: of Georgia and a professor of communication at Georgia State 38 00:02:37,600 --> 00:02:41,880 Speaker 1: University in Atlanta. He said, and these days there really 39 00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:45,840 Speaker 1: is not much difference, because almost all communication is really 40 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:51,919 Speaker 1: mass So the damage, the injury, the hurt caused by 41 00:02:51,960 --> 00:02:55,840 Speaker 1: an allegedly defamatory statement can come in a lot of forms, 42 00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:59,280 Speaker 1: but it's generally recognized as a hit to someone or 43 00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:03,200 Speaker 1: some entity his reputation. That often can bleed into all 44 00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:06,480 Speaker 1: sorts of other types of damage, including to an individual's 45 00:03:06,520 --> 00:03:11,800 Speaker 1: livelihood or a corporation's ability to do business. Enter the lawyers. 46 00:03:13,360 --> 00:03:16,839 Speaker 1: The heart of defamation cases, the heart of the law 47 00:03:16,880 --> 00:03:20,720 Speaker 1: as a whole, really is getting at the truth. If 48 00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:25,120 Speaker 1: that supposedly defamatory published statement that has caused an injury 49 00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:29,639 Speaker 1: is in fact true, all bets are off. True statements 50 00:03:29,680 --> 00:03:34,720 Speaker 1: cannot be considered defamatory. A Lisbie said, truth is always 51 00:03:34,720 --> 00:03:37,760 Speaker 1: a defense. Maybe not a perfect defense, but truth will 52 00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:42,480 Speaker 1: overwhelmingly get you where you want to be. Let's take 53 00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:46,520 Speaker 1: as an example, the claim of Dominion Voting Systems during 54 00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:51,200 Speaker 1: the heated presidential election of Dominion Voting Systems, which is 55 00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:54,400 Speaker 1: an election technology firm with customers in twenty States and 56 00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:58,800 Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, was the target some potentially defamatory statements from 57 00:03:58,800 --> 00:04:04,119 Speaker 1: the supporters and the legal team of then President Donald Trump. Dominion, 58 00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:07,960 Speaker 1: the president's backers said, was a major force behind fraudulent 59 00:04:08,040 --> 00:04:11,320 Speaker 1: voting that through the election to now President Joe Biden. 60 00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:18,320 Speaker 1: In January, Dominions sued Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump's lawyers, 61 00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:22,239 Speaker 1: for one point three billion dollars in damages. In the suit, 62 00:04:22,520 --> 00:04:27,440 Speaker 1: under a detailed section entitled Factual Allegations, Dominions lawyers laid 63 00:04:27,440 --> 00:04:31,479 Speaker 1: out their case against Giuliani, who railed against Dominion in 64 00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:35,880 Speaker 1: television interviews and while selling products on his podcast. The 65 00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:40,120 Speaker 1: section of the suit was subtitled Giuliani enriches himself by 66 00:04:40,160 --> 00:04:43,840 Speaker 1: falsely claiming that Dominion fixed the election, a claim he 67 00:04:43,880 --> 00:04:46,359 Speaker 1: was not willing to make in court because he knew 68 00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:51,479 Speaker 1: it was false. A jury, if the case gets that far, 69 00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:55,760 Speaker 1: will determine whether the many statements Giuliani made regarding Dominion 70 00:04:55,839 --> 00:04:59,919 Speaker 1: are true or not. For its part, Dominion offers rebuttal 71 00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:03,520 Speaker 1: two charges and others on the company website and claims 72 00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:07,040 Speaker 1: that those falsehoods from Giuliani and others have damaged more 73 00:05:07,080 --> 00:05:11,320 Speaker 1: than reputations. The suit states, as a result of the 74 00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:15,800 Speaker 1: defamatory falsehoods, Dominions founder and employees have been harassed and 75 00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:19,560 Speaker 1: have received death threats, and Dominion has suffered unprecedented and 76 00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:25,120 Speaker 1: irreparable harm Lisbie said, the question the court is going 77 00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:28,440 Speaker 1: to be asking is has their reputation been harmed as 78 00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:31,880 Speaker 1: a company? Is it possible is it likely that people 79 00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:34,520 Speaker 1: will not buy their voting machines based on the fact 80 00:05:34,680 --> 00:05:37,960 Speaker 1: that quote the algorithm has been tampered with or quote 81 00:05:38,000 --> 00:05:40,919 Speaker 1: certain number of votes can be changed easily and secretly. 82 00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:46,640 Speaker 1: The answer is yeah, I think they could win. Getting 83 00:05:46,720 --> 00:05:49,760 Speaker 1: to the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is a 84 00:05:49,920 --> 00:05:54,320 Speaker 1: step toward legal relief, but it's not everything. The law 85 00:05:54,400 --> 00:05:57,839 Speaker 1: lays out two different standards of proof, depending upon who 86 00:05:57,960 --> 00:06:02,200 Speaker 1: is claiming to have been libeled. A regular joe charging 87 00:06:02,200 --> 00:06:05,640 Speaker 1: defamation has only to show negligence on the part of 88 00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:08,599 Speaker 1: the person who made the statement. On the other hand, 89 00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:12,440 Speaker 1: a public figure, that is to say, a politician, an actor, 90 00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:15,719 Speaker 1: a government official, a sports star who's claiming to be 91 00:06:15,800 --> 00:06:20,040 Speaker 1: defamed must meet a different and higher standard, something known 92 00:06:20,080 --> 00:06:23,719 Speaker 1: as actual malice or a reckless disregard for the truth. 93 00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:29,440 Speaker 1: It's much harder to prove actual malice. Lizby explained, actual 94 00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:33,560 Speaker 1: malice means knowing falsehood did the person know the statements 95 00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:37,520 Speaker 1: were false. Negligence means basically, did the person act in 96 00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:40,200 Speaker 1: such a way where they ignored whether the statements were 97 00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:44,080 Speaker 1: false or not. The courts make it more difficult on 98 00:06:44,120 --> 00:06:48,320 Speaker 1: a public figure for basically two reasons. First, that public 99 00:06:48,360 --> 00:06:52,720 Speaker 1: figures well are public. They've sought out public attention and 100 00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:57,200 Speaker 1: must reasonably expect some of it to be negative. Secondly, 101 00:06:57,320 --> 00:07:00,960 Speaker 1: public figures have big platforms, and us have the voice 102 00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:03,960 Speaker 1: and reach to make their defense without turning to the 103 00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:09,720 Speaker 1: judicial system. Most private citizens don't have that. The courts 104 00:07:09,720 --> 00:07:11,960 Speaker 1: will make the call on whether the person or entity 105 00:07:12,040 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 1: bringing the suit is a public figure, so as to 106 00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:18,400 Speaker 1: determine which standard of proof must be met, whatever the 107 00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:22,880 Speaker 1: case proving defamation, Not to mention, recovering actual, presumed or 108 00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:27,240 Speaker 1: punitive damages can be a long, arduous and costly endeavor, 109 00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:36,640 Speaker 1: as attaining justice often it's Today's episode was written by 110 00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:39,400 Speaker 1: John Donovan and produced by Tyler Klang. For more on 111 00:07:39,440 --> 00:07:41,760 Speaker 1: this and lots of other curious topics, visit how stuff 112 00:07:41,760 --> 00:07:44,080 Speaker 1: works dot com. Brain Stuff is a production of I 113 00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:46,880 Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Or more podcasts to my heart radio visit 114 00:07:46,920 --> 00:07:49,680 Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen 115 00:07:49,760 --> 00:07:50,680 Speaker 1: to your favorite shows.