Defamation Laws: Ruin Of Reputation In Social Media

DEFAMATION LAWS Name Institutional affiliations Date 1 Mr. Hollis can file a case against Tasha Joseph and the person who sent the information because the information was highly defaming and thus ruined his reputation. According to Code Anno., § 45-8-212 Criminal defamation, defamation occurs when there is anything that exposes an individual or a group of people, class and association to feelings of hatred, being ridiculed, if the remarks are degrading and positions the victim to disgrace in the society. The same law continues to note that the law applies whether the remarks were written, orally spoken or communicated through electronic means as defined by 45-8-213. This subsection also informs that if the defaming statements were passed to the third party without the consent of the person defamed should be treated as a criminal offense and the person who committed this offence can be sentenced to prison for a maximum of six months or should be made to pay a fine of a maximum of 500 dollars. If the plaintiff proves that these claims caused him damages or even affect his employment, he may win his case. These statements said on Joseph’s platform were defaming as they hurt his reputation. Defamation laws were published to protect the reputations of people and entities like businesses. In this case, the statement is a libel because the slander was written and posted on a social media platform. As a requirement, Hollis needs to prove that Ms. Joseph and the user of Joseph’s website made defaming false accusations against the plaintiff and that Tasha Joseph who is the host of the site provided unprivileged publication to the user. Hollis should also prove that Tasha Josephs acted negligently and published the false accusations which ruined his reputation and then provide proof of the damages caused as a result of the statements posted CITATION Wea15 \l 2057 (Weaver & Partlett, 2015). According to the American restatement of torts, these statements were defaming because they exposed the plaintiff to ridicule, it reflected negativity and caused the plaintiff mental suffering. On the plaintiff’s character, the statements compromised the level of the Plaintiff’s morality and integrity, and that the published claims could have caused the plaintiff psychological suffering because others did not want to associate with him. Since this case is a libel, Hollis must produce the published defamatory information which affected him. This is to prove that the statement was communicated and the people this message was addressed to understood the message. Also according to “the restatement “communication is an exchange of information where the recipient correctly or mistakably understands its content. When dealing with this case, the court will also consider associated facts and the availed circumstances to determine the meaning of the statements published on that site to consider if indeed they are defaming or not. Hollis will also have to prove that whatever was published on the website referred to him. It is not even necessary that the communication referred to the plaintiff by name, so long as, even the recipient of the information mistakenly believed that the information related to Mr. Hollis and that the belief is reasonable, Hol...