Proving Libel

The situation: "Surfing chat rooms on the internet one day, you come across a message about your boss, the head of a consulting firm. The poster of the message, another employee, wrote that your boss is 'so dull that a 5-watt lightbulb gives him a run for the money'. Keeping an eye on the chat room, you discover thirty defamatory statements about your boss and the company in the next few days, all made by the same employee. When you inform your boss, his first reaction is to phone and call the attorneys. What should you advise him? Consider whether he might be able to prove the six elements of libel: publication, identification, defamation, fault, falsity and injury. What category of plaintiff is your boss likely to be? What other factors should you consider in deciding whether to pursue legal action?

Publication: This can be proven, because a third party, beyond the plaintiff and the offender has seen the message. According to the standards of libel, if only one person beyond the plaintiff and the offender has seen the message, it has been published.

Identification: This can be proven because both the superior in question, and the company, were specifically named. The employee has not only identified her boss by name, but has given the company for which they are employed, and more than likely, the position that he holds over herself. This specifies who she is talking about beyond doubt.

Defamation: This one is tricky, because the only specific information that we have regarding what was said was that she mentioned that her boss was dull. She is clearly attempting to skew the perceptions of others towards her boss, but we do not know if she has said things that would hold him up to public ridicule. If her statements lean towards her boss being dim, which could also be said of the lightbulb comparison, then the statement could be termed defamation of character, as this incinuates that he is of below average intelligence, and could lead to the perception that he is incompetant. The employee in question has also made a number of negative posts about her employer, which would incinuate malicious intent.

Fault: Because (if I read this correctly) the boss would be termed an all-purpose public figure, malice would have to be proven in order to prove fault. I do believe that multiple publications of defamatory material would be termed malicious.

Falsity: Because we cannot see from the excercise what statements were made in other posts, it is difficult to say whether falsity can be proven. The statement made about the boss being dull is a subjective statement, and therefore, as a matter of taste, cannot be "proven" one way or another.

Injury: Because, as I stated previously, malice can be proven, the courts would assume a general injury to the plaintiff.

Advisement: I would advise my employer to consult an attorney when looking at the statements not mentioned in the excercise. From the information given in the question, four of the six elements of libel can be proven, and with very little information. Therefore, the chances that there are libelous statements contained in the 29 other posts are probably pretty good.

Comparing/Contrasting CIPR, PRSA, and IABC Codes of Ethics

In reading through the codes of ethics for each of these organizations, there seemed to be a few re-occurring themes. Things such as sensitivity to cultural values and beliefs, as well as personal taste were found in all three codes. Accuracy in the relaying of information, whether it be between businesses, to the public, when dealing with the media, and so forth also seemed to be a major priority. PRSA and CIPR held similar codes of ethics/conduct, while IABC seemed to focus primarily on ethics within business communications. IABCs code of ethics contained three main principles to which their members must adhere, and these principles are as follows:

1. Professional communication must be legal.
2. Professional communication must be ethical.
3. Professional communication must be in good taste.

(www.IABC.com)

In the preamble to the code, it is stated that the code of ethics that is to follow is based on the assumption that "just societies are governed by a profound respect for human rights and the rule of the law" (www.IABC.com) . When looking at the preamble, it seems as though the code is to be based primarily on what is legal, when what is legal may not necessarily spell out what is ethical. It is my opinion that the code of ethics contained in the IABC web site falls slightly short of what a code of ethics, especially in a field such as public relations in which ethical practices have in the near past been a source of contention, should be.
In addition, IABCs code of ethics seems to be limited to ethical practices within the realms of communication. Both PRSA and the CIPR integrate things such as continuing education and research (PRSA) and competency (CIPR) into their models.
All three models, however, hold a policy that, should a member be found, after a period of deliberation, to have broken the code of ethics, membership to the organization in question will be terminated.