Now that nearly anyone can get online and “speek freely” it is no wonder that there is a rise in defmation related claims. If only people would have read the Fighting Fair on the Internet series sooner? Indeed, so many people are either “That Guy” or are on the receiving end of “That Guy.” Hey, I’m not judging, I’m just telling it as I see it.
As adults that may not have grown up with the internet, many of us were thrust into online situations that, quite frankly, we weren’t equipped to handled. And now, kids are even getting the short end of the lesson learning stick because of it.
So let’s talk about defamation. Of course, it’s important to point out that laws vary from state to state and if you are not in Arizona, the following information may not apply to you.
ARIZONA DEFAMATION LAW – THE BASICS
The Elements of Defamation in Arizona.
In Arizona, as outlined in Morris v. Warner, 106 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz.Ct.App. 1988), the elements of a defamation claim are:
- a false statment concerning the plaintiff;
- the statement was defamatory;
- the statement was published to a third party;
- the requisite fault on the part of the defendant; and
- the plaintiff was damaged as a result of the statement.
In order for a statement to be considered “defamatory” the statement made must be false and bring the alleged defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeach his/her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation. That is outlined in a case called Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz.335, 341 (Ariz. 1989).
Spoken “defamation” is called slander. Think of rumor telling in the locker room, or maybe even bigger, like saying something on live public television.
Written “defamation” is called libel. Given the popularity of the internet now, this is what we see happening more often. Think of postings you see people post online. Those arguments that get heated and people start making up false statements…yeah, that could be libel.
Distinguishing between defamation per se and defamation per quod.
Distinctions between defamation per se and defamation per quod in Arizona is important because it effects the type of damages that the plaintiff must allege in order to prevail on their claim.
- Slander per se is a statement that does any of the following:
- Imputes the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude (meaning an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community.); or
- Examples of this are false accusations that some has commit rape, forgery, robbery, and solicitation by prostitutes.
- Tends to injure a person in his profession, trade, or business; or
- For example, falsely telling someone that a business took your money without providing the service promissed.
- States that someone has a contageous or vanerial disease, or that a woman is not chaste (meaning that she is not pure from unlawful sexual conduct).
- For example, falsely saying that someone one has AIDs.
- Slander per quod is basically a slanderous statement that does not otherwise fit under the definition of slander per se.
- Libel per se is a statement written which “on their face and without the aid of any extrinsic matter” tend to “bring any person into disprpute, contempt or ridicule” or “impeach the honestly, integrity, virtue or reputation.”
- Libel per quod is bascially a written statement that on its face doesn’t fall within the definition of defamation BUT by which special circumstances actually make it fall within that definition.
Statute of Limitations for Defamation in Arizona
As I discussed in a prior article, it is important that people understand Statute of Limitations. They are there for a reason and, in my view, counsel that file claims that are barred by the statute of limitation are doing nothing more than wasting client resources and, arguably, committing an ethical violation.
The statute of limitations for defamation in Arizona is one (1) year. A.R.S. § 12-541(1). There may be, in some very limited circumstances, an argument to be made that there should be a tolling of the statute of limitations in situations where the information would have been concealed from the plaintiff (like in a confidential memo) in which case the statute of limitations may run fron the date of “discovery.”
Another important fact to know is that Arizona, by state statute, applies what is referred to as the “single publication rule” or, more specifically, the “Uniform Single Publication Act.” A.R.S. § 12-651. The important langugage of the statute states as follows:
A. No person shall have more than one cause of action for damages for libel, slander, invasion of privacy or any other tort founded upon a single publication, exhibition or utterance, such as any one edition of a newspaper, book or magazine, any one presentation to an audience, any one broadcast over radio or television or any one exhibition of a motion picture. Recovery in any action shall include all damages for any such tort suffered by the plaintiff in all jurisdictions.
B. A judgment in any jurisdiction for or against the plaintiff upon the substantive merits of any action for damages founded upon a single publication, exhibition or utterance as described in subsection A shall bar any other action for damages by the same plaintiff against the same defendant founded upon the same publication, exhibition or utterance.
The single publication rule applies to content posted to the internet and under the “single publication rule,” a cause of action for defamation arises at the time the statement is first published; later circulation of the original publication does not start the statute of limitations anew, nor does it give rise to a new cause of action. Larue v. Brown, 235 Ariz. 440, 333 P.3d 767 (2014)
All information contained in this blog (www.beebelawpllc.blog.com) is meant to be for general informational purposes only and should not be misconstrued as legal advice or relied upon. All legal questions should be directed to a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.