It should be noted that although a judge or judicial officer cannot be sued for defamation, one who abuses his power may be subject to impeachment or recall.
Attorneys: Attorneys are protected by absolute privilege for matters revealed in judicial proceedings and any discussions or communications that occur prior to the judicial proceeding in order to ensure their ability to protect the interests of their clients. Any publication must have relevance to the matter at hand. Ginsburg v. Black, 192 F.2d 823 (7 Cir. 1951).
For attorneys, absolute privilege also may protect a communication made prior to a proposed judicial proceeding. However, the communication must be related to the matter and the proceeding proposed must have been proposed in good faith and be under serious consideration. Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U.S. 311, 4 S.Ct. 12, 28 L.Ed. 158 (1884). This privilege does not extend to defamatory statements made at press conferences. Foster v. Percy, Ind., 387 N.E.2d 446 (1979).
Parties to Judicial Proceedings: In order for people to be able to freely use the courts to settle their private disputes, all parties involved in any judicial proceeding or proposed judicial proceeding are protected by absolute privilege. Any communication made to an attorney, prosecutor or officer of the court is protected as long as the material has some reference to the subject of the proposed litigation, even if a formal complaint is never made. This protection extends to statements made in pleadings and statements made on the stand during trial. Twyford v. Twyford, 63 Cal.App.3d 916, 134 Cal.Rptr. 145 (1976).
Jurors: Much like judges, jurors (petit jurors or grand jurors) make judgments in the court of law as a public duty and are, therefore, protected by absolute privilege. Duties of a petit jury, from discussion of trial issues to announcing a verdict, are immune from civil action, regardless of whether the defamation is directed at the judge, a fellow juror, a party, attorney or witness. If the statement is about a person not participating in the proceedings, the juror is protected as long as the material is related to the juror’s work in the subject case. Irwin v. Murphy, 129 Cal.App. 713, 19 P.2d 292 (1933).
While the powers of a grand jury are not addressed in detail here, generally the grand jury is authorized, and therefore protected, in making investigations in order in indict someone. Members of a grand jury are protected under absolute privilege in making reports of these investigations to officers of the court. The protection does not extend to an informal report of such an investigation, nor does it extend to conversations held outside the courtroom or jury room. Ryon v. Shaw, 77 So.2d 455 (Fla. 1955).
Legislators: This absolute privilege protects members of Congress of the United States as well as members of other bodies to which each state has designated legislative powers, including city councils or boards. The protection extends to communication while the legislative body is in session as well as in recess, and includes committees and subcommittees performing authorized work. Discussions outside of a member’s legislative function are not protected. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 26 L.Ed. 377 (1881).
Courts have held that republication in the interest of keeping members of the legislature informed of legislative work should be protected, but printers have been held liable for defamation circulated to the general public.
How to Remove Content from Google
For simplicity sake, when you hear the term “content” remember that covers everything including textual content such as your name, address, or other content types such as images, videos or any others you want removed. Because Google search engine works like that when it indexes the internet. Now that we know this important fact, how can you remove your content from Google? Easy, by following the correct path.
Depending on the country or continent you live in, different laws and protections apply.
For example: if you are a lucky citizen of a country within European Union, then simply head out here and begin the process of right to be forgotten with EU Privacy Removal because:
In May 2014, a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (C-131/12, 13 May 2014) found that certain people can ask search engines to remove specific results for queries that include their name, where the interests in those results appearing are outweighed by the person’s privacy rights.
Removing Content From Google When the Content is On Some External Website/s
Email Symbol and Envelope
Shows an Email Symbol and Envelope illustration
STOP emailing the website owner who published your details, and do not email Google either because Google search engine acts as an intermediate gate-keeper between the searcher, and the website in question.
When the content is found on some external website that is NOT owned by Google. You need a different approach for removing content about yourself.
Why shouldn’t you quickly email the site owner or Google with take down notices? Because in almost 99% of cases, neither the website owner, or Google will deal with these types of email requests.
Think it like this: if your content (name or image) is hosted on some external website, even if Google removes it from its search results, by the nature of the way its search engine algorithms work, that same content will re-appear as soon as Google’s web crawlers (Googlebot) crawls the same website again. That means, Google doesn’t waste time reading emails asking for withdraw of content from its search results.
Furthermore, website owner reading your email asking them for deleting content from their website, 99% of times will NOT delete it but instead realize that you an amateur and thus may also ignore your future requests for removals.
That is why, you need to pull your sleeves up and begin the process of removal requests THE RIGHT WAY.
First: its research time, you need to find out the original source (usually someone first publishes content, then other websites just copy the same content) that means the actual take-down process begins with identifying the owner of the domain name/s by doing a whois search
Witnesses: Since witnesses provide the facts upon which a judgment is made, they are protected by absolute privilege relative to any statements made prior to a judicial proceeding or during their testimony so as to allow them to speak freely without fear of lawsuits. The witness does not have to be under oath. Private conferences with an attorney relative to the litigation also are protected. Todd v. Cox, 20 Ariz.App. 347, 512 P.2d 1234 (1973).
Like the protection afforded attorneys, preliminary communications made by a witness or possible party to a proposed judicial proceeding are protected, but the proposed proceeding must be under serious consideration. It also should be noted that a witness’s privilege while on the stand is controlled by the trial judge and abuse of that privilege could subject the witness to prosecution for perjury or punishment for contempt of court.
Witnesses in legislative proceedings are afforded the same protection as witnesses in judicial proceedings.
Executive and Administrative Officers: Officers of the United States, including the most inferior positions, and the individual states, including the superior officers and in many states, lower ranking officers, are protected by absolute privilege in order that they may be able to freely perform their duties in the interest of public welfare. The court has held that a publication made in the performance of their duties, including the “outer perimeter” of their duties, is protected. Barr v. Matteo (1959) 360 U.S. 564. The purpose of the publication is immaterial provided the officer is authorized to make the publication within his official duties.
What is False Light?
False light is one of several torts under the category of invasion of privacy where a defendant is accused of spreading falsehoods about a plaintiff that would be considered objectionable by the average person. False light is a privacy tort that is similar to defamation. The tort of false light allows individuals and businesses the right to protect themselves against the public dissemination of information, which puts them in a “false light.”
Elements of a False Light Claim
The following elements are generally required to prove the tort of false light:
• The defendant publicized what he or she said about the plaintiff to others (typically information must be widely published, not just to a single person like defamation);
• The statement showed the plaintiff to the public in a “false light” (i.e., the defendant communicated something false);
• The statement would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
• The defendant was at fault and/or acted with malice (to act with malice means the defendant knew or was reckless to the falseness of the statement).
Damages for the Tort of False Light
Under the tort of false light, a plaintiff can receive damages for the emotional harm that he or she suffered by the spread of the falsehood. Good faith on the part of the defendant, such as the defendant not knowing that what he was telling others was a lie, is typically not a defense to this tort. If a court finds that the tort of false light occurred, it will award damages, order an injunction, or both. Damages are calculated based on the extent of the harm suffered by the plaintiff.