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

Certainly there are times when a public figure should lodge a complaint for defamation.

Before this step, you have to weigh the costs and benefits of not alegal perspective but from the perspective of Public Relations.

Most cases that actually made the dishes are filed by people. There are reasons for this.

Citizens have a much lower cross bar. You must prove that the statement was factually incorrect, which was released that they called and damaged his reputation - and someone is responsible. They were negligent.

As a public figure - or a professional PR - you are against a private citizen. Public figures must weigh not only legally and financially, but in the public perception and reputational costs and benefits.

Public figures has to weigh the costs against the benefits of PR PR

Public figures must prove malice, published as an inaccurate statement - or a lie - and not only what they did, but did it with complete disregard for the truth.

There is an obstacle.

What need personalities of all kinds to realize, however, that even in clear cases in which they to win - to complain not always in the form of PR smart - and won.

For what?

For three reasons:

1) Do you really want this information several times for months or years?

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

Even years - a defamation case could drag on for months. If you go to court, other media would not think or repeat false declaration of origin are now focused on the story and repeat the charge. Can you sue them? No, because they can declare documents and court proceedings, without fear of a libel suit.

It is often wiser in terms of public relations, to die a story, give a new life.

2) Deposits against-examination and new surprises

Sure, it might feel good to put a bad journalist there, you have your attorney grilled him in a magazine or put it on the stand for a long test against the way they were careless with the facts, or how it will be sent mail to a friend to say, "Who cares if it's true?"

Unless the defense gets to do the same to an alleged victim of defamation. You get me to leave, sometimes for days.

Defenders are held in the witness stand. You will probably adjust researchers to put under the microscope as well. All you want to do is not made public Got? All you want to keep private? You can not only find, but you can ask for in public, and you better believe that all journalists and sample wire for the attempt on the tips of the interesting things about his tax returns, Babysitter, the reports are not citizens and not juicy .

3) hollow victory

Say that everything is going your way to go. The media, which has defamed no real defense. You navigate through the court and win.

Even then, it could be a hollow victory.

The money may not be much you get. Legal costs are steep. And now the precedent has been set. Once you start filing complaints of this nature, it is difficult to stop protecting their territory, if someone crosses that line. You can spend a lot of money --a judgment can wrap cost five figures, if not six - libel cases you do not win.

If the benefits outweigh the costs

Back when Tom Cruise Nicole Kidman was married, a British tabloid newspaper printed things that were pretty awful. No need to repeat it. Kidman and Cruise chased and British libel law makes it much easier to win in the United States.

Cruise and Kidman won the case.

BBC reported conflicting reports about how much they really won, but. BBC said the figure could exceed £ 100,000, plus £ 150,000 legal costs - but also the BBC quoted a spokesman told the tabloid that these figures were exaggerated, that Cruise and Kidman got 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 make millions of dollars per film, it's nothing. It's like you and me to buy a mocha.

Despite the amount of money, I think the case makes points rate reasons, a defamation lawsuit submit sense. He and Kidman has the right to complain, because they needed to eliminate the flood of stories like this.

There are two main reasons, in terms of public relations, for libel on.

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

Since the charge is not fun for the alleged victim of defamation is not a pleasure for points and media reporters.

Cruise and other public figures have adopted a hard line sometimes, and rightly so. You do not want to let the media tell the hunting on their reputation. The media tends to accumulate, and try to outdo each other pick.

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