Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- Tilted Knowledge and How-To (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-knowledge-how/)

- - Question about libel law (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-knowledge-how/169226-question-about-libel-law.html)

Question about libel law

Is it possible to libel or defame someone (in the legal sense of it being actionable) if they are dead and have no survivors (ie - no living relative who was alive when the person was alive?)

IANAL, but I think not. In general, the defamatory statement must be concerning the plaintiff. Since a dead person cannot be the plaintiff, then it seems unlikely that this could be stretched to cover another person. Generally, I believe, the libeled party must bring the action, and a dead person cannot.

On the other hand, I believe you could conceivably sue for damages to a dead person's reputation. Suppose there is someone/something entirely dependent on the proceeds of the estate of an individual. I'm thinking say for instance, a philanthropist sets up a foundation to help the poor through the sales of widgets. Everyone continues buying his widgets after his death, with the profits going to his foundation. If someone then defames the philanthropist such that on one buys anymore widgets, the foundation might have a cause of action. Whether or not it would constitute libel I don't know since the foundation itself has not been libeled, and it would have to bring the action.

I would imagine the person pressing charges would have to demonstrate harm (emotionally/financially) to the person being libeled for it to be actionable. I would think it impossible to financially or emotionally harm the nonliving. So, no.

Although I understand libel laws in the UK are somewhat easier to prosecute under than those in the US, so they're may be some wiggle room there if the person has an estate that still exists which financially benefits someone (royalties from copyrighted works for example).

You can't libel the dead. If you do something that's a chargeable offense or otherwise brings on a lawsuit, it probably isn't about libeling the dead specifically.

I'm fairly certain you can, actually. There have been a number of cases where the estate of the deceased sued someone for libel, and they can easily demonstrate harm, especially in the case that the estate still makes money in their image (MJ, Elvis, Beatles, etc...)

I figure if the person has surviving relatives it could be.

But I am thinking, say for example you were to without absolutely no basis in proven fact or even evidence, describe someone who died 200 years ago as a whoremonger... surely its ok as there's no one to complain?

where's loquitor when you need him??? he'd have this question for breakfast

Really? Would it be like coffee? or bacon? cereal? orange juice? toast? beans? ...

seeing that loq is jewish, im guessing bacon's off the menu.

I dug up this article. Though, I'm sure there are international jurisdictions for this sort of thing.

Quote:

Can you say anything about the dead?
By Duncan Walker
BBC News

Lurid claims about Princess Diana have made the front pages once again. But what are the restrictions on what you can say about people who have died?

Princess Diana, as everyone now knows, had a colourful life. Yet eight years after her death, stories - often from "close friends and acquaintances" - continue to fuel biographies and newspaper headlines.

This week alone has seen claims that Diana slept with JFK Jnr within hours of meeting him, "in a moment of pure lust". The Kennedy heir's performance, says her alternative therapist Simone Simmons, was worthy of a 10.

First among the usual considerations that an author, such as Ms Simmons, would face when wanting to make explosive claims about people is that of libel. But in recounting her allegations about Diana and Kennedy, both famously dead, the lawyers need not be involved at all.

As the saying goes, "you can't libel the dead". So does that mean hypothetically one could say anything one wanted about someone who had died?

'Analysing history'

The problem for families upset by claims about their dead relatives is that "you can't stop history", says media lawyer Duncan Lamont of solicitors Charles Russell.

“ Of their dead relative, there are no circumstances under which a family could sue for libel ”
Duncan Lamont - media lawyer

While the living can fight tooth and nail to keep their good name, there is little that can be done - in England and Wales at least - once they have passed on.

"You can't protect reputations in perpetuity because it would harm the prospects of analysing history," says Mr Lamont.

For example, the laws of libel would allow Winston Churchill to sue anyone who claimed that he was racist during his lifetime, but they could not be used to stop historians making such claims after his death.

Put simply, the laws of libel are intended to protect only the living against unjustified attacks on their reputation. "Of their dead relative, there are no circumstances under which a family could sue for libel," says Mr Lamont.

'Saving' prostitutes

There are some routes of action which aggrieved families can sometimes take, though.

One example is when the family of the former prime minister William Gladstone took exception to claims that he liked to cavort with prostitutes.

"One version was that he would sleep with them, another is that he would try to save them," says Mr Lamont.

Despite gossip about his unusual habits before his death in 1898, it was not until they were published in 1927 that action was taken. The family called author Peter Wright a liar, which caused him to sue them. Unable to prove the allegations, the writer lost the case - showing that even if you can't libel the dead you can still be provoked into a foolhardy defence of your own reputation.

False claims

The living can also take action when the claims against the deceased have knock-on effects against them. For example, if a newspaper were to claim the deceased committed crimes with members of their family, the family could sue.

Action could also be taken on the grounds of malicious falsehood - where a claim survives for the benefit of the estate. For example, should an article falsely claim that the death of a person meant their business had closed, the estate could sue if the piece was intended to damage the firm and it did so.

Lord Lucan

For those writers who manage to steer away from any tales which libel or otherwise harm the living, one area of danger remains - the undead.

It is not as unusual as some might think for reports of a death to be a little premature.

Earlier this year a man feared to have been killed by the Asian tsunami after telling friends and family he was taking a three month holiday in Thailand turned up safe and well in a British prison.

Should the likes of the much-maligned Lord Lucan turn up alive it could mean many a difficult day in court for the UK's newspaper editors.

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Can you say anything about the dead?

so you cant libel the dead... thats music to my ears!

I believe you can. See e.g. State v. Heffer

Of course, there are probably elements that you would have to meet to become liable for Libel, most notably damages.

Regardless, I'd suggest googling it.

Hitler fucked baby goats on Tuesdays.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414 (Post 2890923)

Hitler fucked baby goats on Tuesdays.

Only Tuesday?

I know Hitler was an animal lover (hated hunting, didnt eat meat, etc), but this is a bit of a shock...

if it defames a company or someone rich related to them you are fucked.

I think it depends a lot on the surviving family. i.e. on whether the libel affects them or not.

Unless you were like the moving scum Paul Burrell - selling anything and everything that you nicked - oh sorry, I meant to say - that your previous employer had entrusted to you. Why disturb the sleep of the dead? Obviously PB does it for money, his wee travelling carnival show. I cant think why someone would want to make up malicious lies about someone just because they are dead - by the same token, the Pope has welcomed his brother Mugabe, and Italy, upholder of human rights allowed the despot murdering tyrant (without oil reserves) to cross over her - like some drunken harlot with her petticoats up plying her trade in a bawdy house for any and all comers. People do not forget. The kiddy fiddler gang entertains mass murderer. This last week the last witness to WW1 passed away. Does that mean history books should be changed now, re written to make it more politicaly correct to fit in with say Hollywoods perception of it? What was that enigma thing? A pear is not a banana - whats the point of arguing that it is.