Legal Speech
Context: food critics – to be more careful
Good Morning, I stand here before you today to speak on behalf of ____, at this ___convention. Many of you seated here are either critics, reviewers or opinionists and take great pride and joy in the profession that you do. (advise). The tort, defamation, regards the area of law dealing with the protection of reputation. The law provides the person who has been wrongfully attacked, the right to take legal action against those responsible. (reference)
For a defamation case to be successful there are three elements that must be satisfied; that the material was communicated by the defendant to a third party, the material identified the plaintiff or plaintiffs, and the material contained
…show more content…
The plaintiffs of the case were Alexandra Gacic and her sister and brother in law, Liliana Gacic and Branislow Circic. A food critic and reviewer for the John Fairfax Publications company, Matthew Evans, sued by the proprietors of the restaurant, ‘Coco Roco’. The review by Evans titled, ‘Crash and Burn’, published on September 30, 2003 in the Sydney morning herald newspaper, was found to include three imputations (Identify what is defamatory matter) that were considered defamatory. Evans had stated that the restaurant ‘Coco Roco’ had; sold unpalatable food, provided bad service, and stated that one of the proprietors’ was incompetent as an owner of a restaurant as he had employed a chef who made poor quality food. The article in whole suggested that the restaurant was not worth attending and urged potential customers to stay …show more content…
The criminal offence occurs when a person or party publishes defamatory material with intent to cause serious harm to another; aware that the information published is false. The maximum penalty for the offence is three years imprisonment. As the defendant in the Gacic v Fairfax case was found to not intentionally have caused intentional harm to the plaintiffs.
The imputations of the article had caused significant damage to the plaintiffs’ reputations, causing great financial impact. The number of patrons attending the restaurant, after the publishing of the review, dramatically decreased to less than a quarter of what it once was, before it became bankrupt and was forced to shut its doors. The article had further impacted the plaintiffs’ emotionally, with each of the owners left distraught
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
In order to solve this case, where James Keegstra was charged under the s. 319(2) of the criminal code for spreading the hate propaganda and where he appealed that this was opposed to his right of freedom of speech; the court followed a detailed and intensive procedure.
In order to prove that the statements were malicious Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant needs to prove that Zagat Survey, LLC had intent to injure Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. When a restaurant chooses to go into business the public has the right to critique the experiences that they have. The review that was published was not to hurt Lucky Cheng’s business, but to let other consumers know what they experienced when dining at Lucky Cheng’s Restaurant. Again, the review was based off many survey’s that were submitted to Zagat Survey, LLC on how they viewed their
One.Tel was an Australia based GSM service provider meaning it functioned mainly in the telecom sector and eventually grew to become Australia’s fourth largest telecom service provider before being shrouded in controversy which lead to its eventual downfall. Jodee Rich and other executive directors of the company faced accusations of not discharging their duties as directors effectively with respect to the duty of care they had towards the best interests of the company. This duty is mandated by Section 180 of the Corporations Act, 2001 as well as principles of common law.
Australian Legal Case: The Mabo Case The Mabo case commenced in the late 70's about an Aborigine Eddie Mabo who fought for his land on Murray Island, part of the Torres Strait. The issue that started the court case was when Mr Mabo appealed for a permit from the Queensland Government to visit the island. His proposal was declineed so he was unable to return home to visit his homeland.
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
Diana Ross case, the court should rule in favor for Gail Davis. In my opinion, the letter could be interpreted as libelous. The combination of expressed dissatisfaction with Davis’ work habits, her erroneous inclusion among a group of people who had been terminated, and the recommendation to not hire her, could be viewed as defamatory. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the lower courts view, that the statements were mere opinion, rather than purported fact. Since the letter claimed to be based on facts and was distributed to others, it was not a mere personal opinion. Additionally, the case was remanded, therefore, the court did not consider the issue of qualified privilege, which is another defamation defense that is often relevant in work related defamation actions Walsh, 2013. P. 153). Presumably, the unsolicited distribution of the letter with its recommendation not to hire, could be viewed as both malice, and as an overly broad publication. The failure to verify the simple fact that Gail Davis had not been fired, could also be viewed as reckless disregard for the
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
Specifically, libel is defamation that is expressed in written or other graphic form. The Supreme Court of Texas held in Neely v. Wilson that in order for private individuals in Texas to recover damages, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant published a statement, (2) the statement was defamatory concerning the plaintiff, and (3) the defendant acted with negligence regarding the statement’s truth. In order for a statement to be defamatory it must injure a person’s reputation, expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or financial injury, or impeach his honesty, integrity, or virtue. However, it is possible for a statement to be false, abusive, or unpleasant without being defamatory. A statement becomes actionable defamation when the statement is of verifiable fact rather than opinion. But a statement simply labeled as an opinion may be actionable if it expressly or implicitly asserts facts that can be objectively
...ish Fast-Food Strikes | National Review Online." National Review Online. National Review Online, 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
In document D the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension.J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language.J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because it didn 't cause a substantial disruption.
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name. While there are connections, each concentrate on different forms of defamation approaches. Normally, this will include not only the use of certain words to harm a reputation, but also activities such as finger signals or facial expressions in order to emphasize the fabrication that is being dispersed. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." Libel deals with printed matter, TV and radio broadcasts, movies and videotapes, social media sites, even blogs, emails, even drawings on a wall. An unpleasant statement is verbal; the statement is "slander." Slander explains defamation that you can overhear, not see. It is commonly spoken statements that distort someone's reputation. The government can't jail someone for making a defamatory statement since it does not break the law. Instead, defamation is considered to be an infringement of a person's ...
When defamation comes to practice and people feels threatened with a defamation suit, the biggest focus is on whether or not there is something offensive. Although this is important there is an additional, more practical way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. And if the right was present there are few possible defences. Firstly what was said is true, secondly there was a duty to provide information, and lastly it was an expression of an opinion.