To sue or not to prosecute: libel, defamation and ...

Certainly there are times when a public figure should be filing a defamation suit.

Before this step, you have to weigh the costs and benefits not alegal view from the perspective of public relations, but.

Most cases is to hit the courts are contributed by individuals. There are reasons for this.

Citizens have a much lower barrier bar. You must prove that the statement factually wrong, which was published that called themselves and damage to their reputation - and someone is responsible. They were negligent.

As a public figure - or a PR professional - not in front of a private citizen. Public figures need to weigh the costs and benefits in the public perception and reputation, is not only a legal and a financial point of view, however.

Public figures should cost versus benefits Peso PR PR

Public figures must prove malice, published as an inaccurate statement - or an outright lie - not only did, but did so with reckless disregard for the truth.

This is a big obstacle.

What personalities of all kinds should realize, however, is that even in cases where they must win clear - and win - not always the view of the intelligent public relations, file a complaint.

For what?

For three reasons:

1) Do you really want this information is repeated for months or even years?

A false story could to draw attention to a few days or weeks.

Could lead to a defamation lawsuit for months - even years. If you go to the courts, other media would not consider, reproduction or duplication of false declaration of origin now cover the history and repeat the load. Can you sue them? No, because it will explain the procedure and court records without fear of defamation.

Often it is the smartest PR point of view, it makes a story dying to give it a new life.

2) statements, interviews and new surprises

Sure, it might set a good feeling, a bad journalist on the spot, have your lawyer grilled him a deposit or put it in the state for a long resistance test so that they careless with the facts, or how e- to send mail to a friend were to say, "Who cares if it's true?"

Unless the defense gets to do the same with an alleged victim of defamation. To leave you get, sometimes for days.

Defenders are held in the witness stand. You will probably engage researchers to under close scrutiny as well. Do you have something you do not want to be made public? Everything you want to keep private? You can not only find, but ask them at a public hearing, and you better believe that all journalists and cable programs, which is the study tablespoon of interesting things in your tax return, nannies that do not report citizens and nothing juicy.

3) hollow victory

Suppose everything goes your way. The media, which has defamed no real defense. To navigate through the courts and win.

Even then, it could be a hollow victory.

The money that you get is not much. Legal costs are steep. And now the precedent has been set. If you begin this process, it is hard not to protect the lawn when someone crosses the line. You can wrap you spend lots of money - a claim five figures, if not cost six - for the defamation case is not won.

If the benefits outweigh the costs

At the time Tom Cruise Nicole Kidman a British tabloid newspaper was printed things that were pretty awful married. No need to repeat it. Cruise and Kidman continued, and the British libel law is much easier to win for America.

Cruise and Kidman won the case.

BBC conflicting reports about how much they actually won versions, however. BBC said the figure could exceed £ 100,000, plus £ 150,000 in legal fees - but the BBC also quoted a tabloid spokesman said that these figures were exaggerated, that Cruise and Kidman received much less.

For the average person, it can be a lot of money. For two of the highest paid actors in Hollywood, the people who put ten million dollars a movie, it's nothing. It's like you and buy me a mocha.

Despite the amount of money, I think that makes for speed points to the grounds for a libel suit sense. He and Kidman have the right to sue, because they like it is needed at the end of the flood of stories.

There are two main reasons, from the perspective of public relations, to continue for defamation.

• To stop a media or a person of a pattern of defamation
• To stop a relentless series of slanderous stories of several media

Because the requirements are not fun for the alleged victims of defamation is not a joy for points and media reporters.

Cruise and other public figures have sometimes taken a hard line, and rightly so. You do not want the media to explain hunting on their reputation to have. The media tend to accumulate, and to try to find other excavators.

There are times when it is necessary to stop the ball before it is rolled.