Can you sue someone for libel on behalf of a dead guy?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**mattyrm**

Well can you? I know that if someone randomly was to say "person X is a nazi, racist sexual deviant" on a public forum, then person X will no doubt sue you for libel right? Im not up on all this stuff.. being British i alays thought suing people was you know.. just in the movies..

Anyway, whats the score if person X is now dead?!

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

I think the family can sue for defamation of character?

Dunno for sure though.

**tblock1984**

I dunno... We should ask the lawyer for this case

Some news website wrote:Harrisburg, VA) - Carl L. Frampton Jr. helped a lesbian couple conceive two children. The couple, Jodilynn Jacob and Jennifer Lee Schultz-Jacob began a relationship and eventually had a civil union in Vermont in 2002. Jodilynn Jacob adopted two children that Schultz-Jacob had previously
Dead Sperm Donor Ordered to Pay Child Support
and the couple decided they would like to have more.

Frampton, a friend of the couple decided he would like to help them out, and he did. Two children were conceived at home for the couple. In 2006, the once happy couple decided to split, with Jacob moving out with all four children. The pair went to court to decide which woman should pay child support to whom. It was decided that Schultz-Jacob should pay Jacob $1000 a month, but Schultz-Jacob did not think this was fair and decided to try her hand in something else.

She later went to court and argued that the father, Carl L. Frampton Jr. should have to pay child support. She lost this round, while the Superior Court overturned the ruling. The matter was even more complicated due to Frampton's relationship with the children. He frequently became involved in their lives and frequently helped with their care, even contributing some money for the care of the two children he fathered.

That fact however would prove useful, as that fact largely encouraged the court's ruling. Carl L. Frampton Jr. would indeed have to pay child support. What is the only problem with this ruling? Carl Frampton is dead.

Carl L Frampton Jr. died suddenly in March of a stroke. His estate lawyers are baffled as how exactly to proceed with this ruling.

Superior Court Judge John T.J. Kelly Jr. stated in a written ruling that Frampton contributed thousands of dollars to the children's care. He even said that the children knew that he was their biological father. They even attended his funeral. He sees this as a variant as to how the support court sees him, it's as if he played a minimal role in their lives, when in fact, he played a rather large one. This is a large factor in the decision of this case.

**Orkeosaurus**

Injury must to the person defamed must be proven.

Thus, if the defamation occurs after the person's death, I do not believe you can be held liable, as it is impossible to socially harm a corpse.

I'm not sure about defamation that occurred during that person's life but was not brought to suit until after their death.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

But you can harm their estate.

I guess an average guy like ourselves would have no point, but had we been highly successful in some field, and post mortem, someone decided to say malicious stuff (paedo, rapist etc) then as we'd have a legacy estate, a defamation case could proceed.

**Polonius**

Standard Caveat: While I am a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. This is an answer to a general question, not legal advice.

Libel (and slander) actions are to recover for damages to a person's reputation and good standing in the community. Once dead, they no longer have a reputation, and thus they may not sue to libel or slander.

Additionally, courts have held that people of a certain notoriety may not sue for libel. Basically, if a person is an ex-con and the town drunk, they don't really have any reputation worth preserving.

**KingCracker**

Polonius wrote:Standard Caveat: While I am a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. This is an answer to a general question, not legal advice.

Libel (and slander) actions are to recover for damages to a person's reputation and good standing in the community. Once dead, they no longer have a reputation, and thus they may not sue to libel or slander.

Additionally, courts have held that people of a certain notoriety may not sue for libel. Basically, if a person is an ex-con and the town drunk, they don't really have any reputation worth preserving.

What about GWAR then? Could he try and sue all the people that want to burn him at the stake? Or does he too not have enough character to sue?

**Polonius**

KingCracker wrote:
Polonius wrote:Standard Caveat: While I am a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer. This is an answer to a general question, not legal advice.

Libel (and slander) actions are to recover for damages to a person's reputation and good standing in the community. Once dead, they no longer have a reputation, and thus they may not sue to libel or slander.

Additionally, courts have held that people of a certain notoriety may not sue for libel. Basically, if a person is an ex-con and the town drunk, they don't really have any reputation worth preserving.

What about GWAR then? Could he try and sue all the people that want to burn him at the stake? Or does he too not have enough character to sue?

Well, libel laws don't exist to keep people from saying mean things about other people. So, the short answer is no.

the longer answer is that the succeed in a libel case, you need to show that the defendent published a statement that caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation. Now, the courts realized pretty early on that this could lead to some ugly cases, so they made up a rule: a plaintiff has to show either that he suffered some monetary harm (say, rumors of being a pervert caused him to lose a job), or that the statement was made in one of the following "per se" categories:
1) that the plaintiff has a vile or loathesome disease (STDs and leprosy)
2) lack of female chastity
3) the plaintiff committed criminal acts
4) the statement is harmful the plaintiff's trade or business

Keep in mind that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases, at least in the US.

**Emperors Faithful**

Aussie law = No.

We just covered this in Legal Studies, and there are exceptions, but ussually no. Since we use the Westminister system I think the same would apply to the UK.

It might be different in US bu I guess that's why a lot of people said nasty stuff about Michael Jackson on TV after he died. When he wa still breathing they'd have a horde of lawyers rammed down their throats.

**mattyrm**

Yeah thanks for the advice, I watched a video on livingwaters.com made by Kurt Cameron in which he calls Charles Darwin misogynistic racist bigot among other things, and i think from reading all of his books, the guy was clearly a very pleasant family man, and very forward thinking for his time, i think you could demonstrably show that these people are flat out telling lies about a man, just because he was unlucky enough to be the first person to introduce an idea that they think is incompatible with their religious beliefs.

I was thinking of writing to his Great Grandson and informing him of this. I was curious, could any action be taken against them? What are your thoughts on the matter?

Im not the type of bloke that writes angry letters and gets upset about things, but genuinelly think that saying so many horrible things about a dead man like this is absolutely shocking and as low as it gets.

**Emperors Faithful**

No legal action could be taken.

At least, I don't think so.

**reds8n**

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4630243.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687280.ece

Hmm... if I remember I'll speak to the legal department at work tomorrow and check, but I am reasonably certain said gentleman was well within his rights, I don't think it is possible to libel the dead in this country.. and I really don't think you'd have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the above case.

**Kilkrazy**

No.

A dead person cannot be defamed in English law.

**Emperors Faithful**

It could apply to thier family though (If they were affected enough). Though the accusation would have to be pretty grave.

**Orkeosaurus**

mattyrm wrote:Yeah thanks for the advice, I watched a video on livingwaters.com made by Kurt Cameron in which he calls Charles Darwin misogynistic racist bigot among other things, and i think from reading all of his books, the guy was clearly a very pleasant family man, and very forward thinking for his time, i think you could demonstrably show that these people are flat out telling lies about a man, just because he was unlucky enough to be the first person to introduce an idea that they think is incompatible with their religious beliefs.

I was thinking of writing to his Great Grandson and informing him of this. I was curious, could any action be taken against them?

No. Apart from simply being dead, and thus unable to be harmed, the speaker could argue that there is sufficient evidence for him being a "misogynistic racist bigot" in his writings and thus it is something a reasonable person could consider true (given the subjective nature of the accusation it would be hard to argue against this), and you would have additional standards of evidence due to him being a Public Figure (and a controversial one at that).

If you don't want people to tell lies about him, you'll just need to correct them. (And since Darwin's theories have become more important than he probably would have ever guessed, I wouldn't feel too bad about him getting bashed some of the time.)