One of my favourite quotes attributed to Voltaire is, "If you would converse with me, you must first define your terms."
Of course, this exact wording is almost impossible to find, firstly because Voltaire wrote in French, so every quote of his has been translated, and then, his use of "would" is archaic, and has been simplified into "wish to" or "want to" (which might subtly change the tense), and "you must" has been dropped.
Just to go a bit further into the weeds of translation, there is an advertisement for a foreign language learning course where the leading character gets into a taxi in Paris, and the taxi driver says to her in French, "Where would you like to go?" using the verb "vouloir".
The passenger ought to use the same verb, and reply "je voudrais aller..." but instead, she changes the verb and says that she "would like" or "would love" to go to the hotel.
Some would say that if you use the verb "to like/to love", you stress your enthusiasm or passion for what you are about to do, and if you use vouloir (want/like/will), your emphasis is on the rest of the sentence.
For would-be tourists, precision with language is not a priority. It is enough to convey meaning. For lawyers, precision is of the essence. For authors, it is probably somewhere in the middle, especially if one has a deadline.
My terms for the day are as follows:
Libel (If you write it... from the Latin, LIBER, a book)
Slander ( If it is oral and transitory, as in spoken)
Writers, authors, novelists, bloggers, journalists have to worry about libel. Standard contracts with publishing houses put the liability firmly with the writer if something in the work should offend, and a libel suit should be initiated.
Occasionally, it is tempting to "anchor" a novel by making explicit reference to a celebrity or public figure or institution or event. Even if the author does not specifically name the famous person, but makes it obvious to any reasonable reader to whom they are referring, the famous person could sue if they feel that the author was deliberately malicious. Mentioning the name of a well known corporation (or its iconic product) can also get a writer into hot legal water.
Legal bloggers Alexandra Perloff-Giles, Amer S Ahmed, Connor Sullivan and Erica Sollazzo Payne for the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, recently compiled a very thorough report on defamation claims in the USA which is presented in a Q & A format (which is always an easy read and very helpful for finding what one wants to know, and skipping over what one doesn't.)
Find it here:
https://www.lexology.com/gtdt/tool/workareas/report/defamation-and-reputation-management/chapter/usa
When thinking about defamation in the USA, it is important to recognize that different States and territories may have different standards --for instance, whether defamation is treated as a criminal matter or a civil one-- and also, sometimes, different standards apply depending on whether the allegedly libelled plaintiff is an ordinary person, or a public official or celebrity.
"... the Supreme Court held that a defamation plaintiff who is a public official – in addition to establishing that challenged statements are false – must prove, with ‘convincing clarity,’ that the defendant published the statements with ‘actual malice,’ meaning awareness that the statements were false or reckless disregard for whether the statements were false."
The passage explaining the five legal tests for whether or not published words are defamatory is eye-opening.
They also discuss the similarities and differences between Libel and Slander, and not all States make a distinction.
In fact, this remarkable article covers almost everything a writer ought to know about defamation, and buried in the middle of a very long and useful work, is the most vital information:
Find it all here:"What key defences are available to a claim in defamation?
- Substantial truth. In most states, it is a complete defence to prove that a statement is ‘substantially true,’ regardless of the defendant’s degree of fault. ‘Substantial truth’ does not require exact accuracy, so long as the ‘gist’ of the statement is true.
- Opinion. In most states, it is a complete defence to establish that a statement expresses an opinion rather than asserting a fact. States may distinguish between ‘pure’ opinion and ‘mixed’ opinion, with only ‘pure’ opinion statements protected. Courts typically find that statements containing loose, figurative or hyperbolic language are non-actionable pure opinion, so long as speakers disclose all facts on which they rely and do not imply the existence of other, undisclosed facts.
- Consent. In most states, it is a complete defence to prove that the plaintiff consented to the publication."
All the best,
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment