日志
诽谤还有个要素大家没有提：unprivileged --- 彼岸网 TFollowerII
诽谤还有个要素大家没有提：unprivileged
热度 3 |
最近网上有很多关于诽谤的纠纷。我看有些文章已经提到了诽谤的基本要素了：
- published
- false
- injurious
但是今天读一篇文章发现还有一个要素unprivileged。
5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be "unprivileged." Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example,witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can't be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered "privileged," free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themsleves also enjoy this privilege: They aren't liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.
在法庭上作证涉嫌诽谤，看来没有什么严重后果。因为不可能有任何个人控告诽谤。尽管你的证词是公开的，虚假的，导致伤害的。最多只能是检方控告伪证。
联系到在一些政治案件中的一些证人的证词（比如Trayvon Martin案庭上的证词，Michael Brown案，和Vonderrit Myers案中的三明治），根据其他不可推翻的物理和逻辑证据，我觉得明显是虚假的证词。可是，却没有听到任何关于检方针对这些伪证的后续诉讼的新闻。美国的法律设计精神为了保证弱者能够在没有恐惧的情况下作证，而留下这么宽容的门缝。虽说理念宏大，可是在看到这么多堂而皇之钻法律空子的情况不受惩处，实在不让我觉得骄傲。
http://bian-wang.com/discuz/static/image/common/fav.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 5px 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat;" target="_blank">收藏http://bian-wang.com/discuz/static/image/common/oshr.png); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 5px 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat;" target="_blank">分享http://bian-wang.com/discuz/static/image/common/activitysmall.gif); background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: 5px 50%; background-repeat: no-repeat;" target="_blank">邀请举报
全部作者的其他最新日志
发表评论评论 (7 个评论)
- 回复lawandorder
- 简单回答你的问题：
1）诉状里的内容是privileged吗？ -- 是。
2）如果提供priviledged的人把同样的内容又在其它场合如博客里公布了，那就不是privileged的了，是吗？ -- 是，还是。
- 回复TFollowerII
- 是。
但是我想增加一点。虽然在copy paste博客这个例子中unprivileged要素符合了，但是false那个要素却难以证明符合。无论是原告贴还是其他人贴原告的状纸，如果被告诽谤，他们可以轻易地argue他们不过是在引用法庭状纸这一事实。所以诽谤还是无法成立。
- 回复天香公主
- 谢谢答复。我还有个问题，把你的两点结合起来是不是可以得出这样的结论：如果原告把诉状贴到博客里，那诉状的内容对他本人而言就不是privileged了，但如果只是别人把诉状贴出来的话，对原告仍是privileged, 对吧？
- 回复TFollowerII
- 针对天香公主的问题，我也做一下思考练习。同时期待Lao先生的标准答案。
1. 是。在LAO先生下面提到的高庭的精神就是不希望法律trial中的参与者受到干扰。在Youmans v. Smith的判决中，还有这段也是表明了同样的精神。
A counsel, or party conducting judicial proceedings, is privileged in respect to words or writings used in the course of such proceedings reflecting injuriously upon others, when such words and writings are material and pertinent to the questions involved; * * * within such limit, the protection is complete, irrespective of the motive with which they are used; but such privilege does not extend to matter, having no materiality or pertinency to such questions.
无论是witness，还是有律师/或自己代表的原告，都是party conducting judicial proceedings。所以同样适用。恶意诉讼的惩罚当然有LAO先生提到的其他联邦Rules of Civil Procedure来罩着。
2. 不是。无论是copy paste，或者重新写，只要在其他场合，即便内容是一模一样，也不在该保护之列。
- 回复TFollowerII
- 多谢LAO先生关于absolute 和 qualified，1897的案例的指点。向你学习。
- 回复lawandorder
- Very good point, TFollowerII. The situation described in the nolo.com article involves the so-called "litigation privilege" in NY, and it comes in two forms: absolute and qualified. The jurisprudence underlying this privilege traces back to the 1897 decision of the Court of Appeals, Youmans v. Smith, 153 NY. 214, 219-20 (1897), where the high court stated that "administration of justice requires that the rights of clients should not be imperiled by subjecting their legal advisers to the constant fear of suits for libel or slander."
