How To Prove A Florida Defamation By Implication Claim
In Florida, a claim of Defamation By Implication is defined as:
Defamation By Implication occurs when one juxtaposes a series of facts to imply a defamatory connection between them or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts. Defamation by implication is premised on false suggestions, impressions and implications arising from otherwise truthful statements.
It simply means:
When one person hurts another by implying something that is not true.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The defendant either juxtaposed facts about the plaintiff to imply a defamatory connection between them or created a defamatory implication by omitting relevant facts. The defendant suggested a harmful link between the plaintiff and negative facts, either by placing them side by side or by leaving out important details, which could mislead others into thinking badly of the plaintiff.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant published an article that highlighted the plaintiff’s past legal issues while omitting the fact that those issues were resolved and did not result in any criminal charges.
* In a social media post, the defendant shared a photo of the plaintiff at a controversial event, failing to mention that the plaintiff was merely a bystander and not involved in the event’s activities.
* The defendant compared the plaintiff’s business practices to those of a known fraudster, neglecting to disclose that the plaintiff had received multiple awards for ethical business conduct.
* The defendant stated that the plaintiff was associated with a disreputable organization, without revealing that the plaintiff had resigned from that organization years prior due to its unethical practices.
* The defendant claimed the plaintiff was involved in a scandal, while omitting that the plaintiff was a victim of the scandal and had no wrongdoing. - Element 2. The series of facts and/or omissions created a defamatory implication about the plaintiff. In a defamation by implication claim, this means that the way certain facts were presented, or what was left out, suggested something negative about the person involved, even if nothing directly harmful was said.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The article suggested that the plaintiff was involved in illegal activities without providing any evidence to support this claim.
* The headline of the publication framed the plaintiff in a negative light, implying wrongdoing despite the absence of factual basis.
* The author selectively quoted the plaintiff, omitting key context that would have clarified the situation and mitigated the negative implications.
* The publication included misleading images that suggested the plaintiff was associated with criminal behavior, further damaging their reputation.
* The overall tone of the article was sensationalist, leading readers to infer guilt on the part of the plaintiff without substantiated claims. - Element 3. The statements caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation. The statements made about the plaintiff were misleading or suggested something negative about them, leading others to think poorly of them and harming their reputation in the community.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant published statements suggesting the plaintiff engaged in unethical business practices, leading to a loss of clients.
* Following the defendant’s statements, the plaintiff’s professional relationships deteriorated, resulting in significant financial losses.
* The statements were widely shared on social media, causing public backlash against the plaintiff’s character and integrity.
* The plaintiff’s reputation in the industry suffered, as evidenced by negative feedback from peers and clients after the statements were made.
* The defendant’s implications led to the plaintiff being excluded from key industry events, further damaging their professional standing. - Element 4. In cases involving plaintiffs who are public figures, the publisher acted with actual malice, meaning knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth. This is not required when the plaintiff is a private citizen. In defamation cases involving public figures, the publisher must have known the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, but this standard doesn’t apply when the person being defamed is a private citizen.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The publisher received multiple credible sources contradicting the defamatory statement but chose to publish it anyway.
* Internal communications revealed that the publisher was aware of the potential inaccuracy of the claims but proceeded to publish them to attract attention.
* The publisher had a history of publishing sensationalized stories about the plaintiff, indicating a pattern of reckless disregard for the truth.
* Eyewitness accounts provided to the publisher directly refuted the claims made in the article, yet the publisher ignored this information.
* The publisher failed to conduct any reasonable investigation into the facts before making the defamatory statements about the plaintiff.
(See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So.2d 1098, 1106 (Fla.2008). Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So. 3d 1229 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 2021.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Defamation By Implication, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make critical decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.
Prove Your FL Defamation By Implication Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only