OP feels that the company is unethical and corrupt. He writes a letter to the CEO of the company telling him that the company is unethical and corrupt.
Where is the publication?
Printable View
OP feels that the company is unethical and corrupt. He writes a letter to the CEO of the company telling him that the company is unethical and corrupt.
Where is the publication?
So, who are YOU anticipating that he would be writing the letter to?
You are completely clueless.
Okay, let's go at it this way. For purpose of this question, who is the corporation?
Again with the insults? Sigh.
Before we go through silly games, do you know what Prosser on Torts is? (Actually, Prosser and Keeton on Torts".) It is called a Hornbook. It is often referenced in cases where the basic law is needed to be stated. For the specific cases (not precidential in HI) referenced for the quote applicable here:
Duke of Brunswick v. Harmer, 1849, 14 Q.B.D. 185, 53 L.J.Q.B. 20
Brown V. Elm City Lumber Co., 1914, 167 N.C. 9, 82 S.E. 961
So you can see it has been so for a very long time.
To answer your question, a "corporation" is not a "who", it is a what.
From (http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/vi...context=wmborj)
Quote:
Defamation law is designed to protect reputation "in the popular sense," that
which diminishes "the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff
is held."'3 7 The traditional definition of reputation, however, concerns the personal
and emotional consequences of false speech.' In Gertz, the Court stated explicitly
that defamation law exists to protect "the essential dignity and worth of every
human being. '
Corporations are incapable of suffering the reputational injury that defamation
law seeks to redress. The corporation is a "artificial being ... existing only in
contemplation of law.""Iw A corporation does not have social relationships and
cannot suffer the same emotions that a natural person may suffer.'6' They do not
have a private life. 62 Nor do they have a purely personal reputation.' 63 Moreover,
the reputation of a corporation is not directly attributable to any natural person. The
separation of management control and shareholder ownership "place[s] the
shareholder at a greater emotional and legal distance from an allegedly defamatory
publication concerning the corporation."'" In essence, corporations do not have a
"character to be affected" by defamation. 165
While they cannot be personally harmed, corporations may have a property
interest in their reputations, an intangible asset akin to good will. 11 At common
law, a corporation can recover for insults to its reputation for "financial soundness,
efficiency, credit, management, or other matters affecting business reputation."'67
Corporations may stand to lose substantial amounts of wealth if their corporate
name is tarnished. 6 The concept of reputation as a property interest, however, is
problematic in the defamation law context. First, the Supreme Court has been
unwilling to recognize a heightened constitutional interest based on that party's
economic position.'69 Second, because defamation law is based on personal
reputational interests, it allows for a "substantial verdict for the plaintiff without
any proof of actual harm to reputation."''I A corporate plaintiff thus puts
"defamation law in the business of compensating individuals for harms which, from
the perspective of reputation as property, may well be nonexistent."'' Third, unfair
trade practices, product disparagement suits, and market controls diminish the
chances of corporate loss to reputation. " Finally, corporations have unique access
to the channels of communication in order to launch countervailing speech in
response to defamatory falsehoods."
Because the reputation of a corporation is not the same type of reputation as
that of a natural person, defamation law is not well-served by treating personal and
corporate reputations as equivalent. As corporations cannot suffer personal
reputation injury, "corporations as a class are less deserving of reputational
protection than individuals.".
Exactly.
Have you read the above quote?
No, she's right. You're seriously lacking in clue.Quote:
Again with the insults?
Writing a letter to a company to tell them they suck is not publication to a third party, any more than writing a letter to you to tell you that you suck is publication to a third party.
It's time for you to be quiet on this topic, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
JasonJ, the answer to your question of "Can they sue" is "Yes, they can sue." You can be sued because your neighbor doesn't like the color of your house. You can be sued because your bank teller hates your shoes. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. All "sue" means is "ask the courts to settle an argument".
You're asking the wrong question. The question you should be asking is "Can they win?", and the answer to that is NO.
It's not defamation to tell a company what you think of them.
First in answer to your title question: Yes, you can be sued for what you write in a letter. But you would not be sued for "slander." Slander is the oral or spoken form of defamation. Libel is its written form.
That said, unless in the private letter to the company you singled out a specific person or specific people as being unethical or corrupt, the private letter to the company could not be the basis of a successful defamation claim. You have caused no harm to the reputation of the company.