Are religious institutions protected from libel in ways that individuals are not?
552166
Generally (see above on the value of specific legal advice), groups have the same legal expression (free speech) rights and liabilities as individuals. This includes religious organizations and other expressive associations.\n\nIf a religious (or other) organization says/does something that would be defamatory, then they would likely be just as liable for libel (or slander) as if an individual had done it.\n\nCaveat: some states may grant special protections to certain organizations, and I don't know whether Colorado is one of them. To be sure, consult with a Colorado attorney.
1418
No, at least not in the US. It goes with the whole "freedom of speech" thing. The first amendment says:\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."\n\nIf someone is telling you how to speak in your own backyard, your first amendment rights are being violated.\n\nHowever if you're cursing loud enough to disturb your neighbours, then you're infringing on their rights, in which case you can be charged with a disorderly persons offence.
1081270
The newspaper can sue you for using their copyrighted image without permission.  The individual can sue you for libel and/or slander.\n\nIn America, you can sue anyone at any time for any reason.  It's just a matter of whether or not your case is valid.
266719
no....\nIt's actully a protection for the people inside.\nIf god sends his wrath on them, then just because they're inside a holy place, might get averted.
107968
Yes!  Your right to practice any religion you want is protectected by the first ammedment.  If any government agency (a pulic school system, for example) bans the practice of a certain religion, you can sue them big time!
470954
True, it doesn't say verbatim "seperation between church and state", however that somes up the 1st amendment nicely.\n\nHow would you teach a specific religion in a public school and not consider that to be a favoring a specific religion above all others?
525882
Generally not...There are religions which would preclude the use of the bible some of which are christian. "Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no for anything beyond this is from the wicked one". Don't remember the exact location but it's from one of Paul's letters. Not all courtrooms are as enlightened though.....
808250
1. Apparently the only points deducted are those attributable to the alleged violator.\n\n2. There is no freedom of speech on a privately-owned forum, although ordinary non-discrimination rules, and defamation law, apply.
238341
The US does not recognize religions per se, but the IRS gives individual churches non-profit status. They have a list of all charities eligible to receive tax-deductable donations at the site below. You can either search it or download the whole thing. The IRS does not decide whether or not something is a religion, but merely accepts a statement by the church that it exists solely for a religious purpose.
778020
The only way Constitutional laws apply to your case is in theory, by the spirit of natural laws contained in the First Amendment, if you equate the situation you are in with a form of "due process" or "petitioning" to redress grievances and to establish justice. \n\nThis same First Amendment that proclaims the freedom of speech, or of the press (written or spoken communication) also protects the right of the people "peaceably" to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.  So any abuse of freedom of speech, press or religion to cause disruption or "breach of the peace" actually violates the same set of laws that naturally check and balance each other when considered together in context.  \n\nThis inherent balance between First Amendment rights can be seen in Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous example, that you cannot abuse freedom of speech to the point of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  My point is that since this would cause an undue disturbance or breach of the peace, it abridges the right of the people "peaceably" to assembly in the theatre, and thus violates the very same law used to invoke free speech.\n\nToday, more specific legislation has been written concerning hate\ncrimes and harassment, which also concern this same natural check on personal freedoms.\n\nOnly if both parties in a dialogue agree to abide by the same rules and respect the peace while they "petition" each other, can these Constitutional laws be used to protect you from invasion or infringement of your equal right to peace and freedom and protection.  If the other party does not seem to respect your rights equally, you can peacefully "petition" to do so by addressing them directly as a peer to correct the problem between you as amicably as possible, and advising them that failure to resolve this civilly will force you to report this to authorities as a criminal threat issued over the internet.  If the person has published false or damaging statements about you, to do so in spoken word is slander and to do so in written word is libel; and both are unlawful and are grounds for lawsuit.  However, given the expense of a lawsuit, I would rather pursue mediation instead.  It tends to resolve the issue more effectively, without the high cost or risk of legal action, and restores the dignity to both parties.\n\nIf this person has any respect for the very same Constitutional laws by which we invoke freedom of speech and press to communicate, he or she should be compelled to answer your petition as long as you are equally answering their grievances.  Indeed, since the First Amendment reflects natural laws that govern all human nature, I have found most people do respond favorably when asked to help correct a grievance peacefully out of respect for the very laws that they enjoy exercising so freely.\n\nBoth sides would have to agree to stop the threatening behavior and to restore civil communications; or the resulting breach or disruption of the peace is, itself, infringing on the rights and freedom of both parties to petition each other peacefully, through spoken or written word, as equally respectful human beings.
436841
Anyone can hold copyrights, and religious entities frequently do. For instance, various translations of the Bible are copyrighted, along with the extra material that goes along with various editions. Tax exemption and copyrights are unrelated.
472745
try www.aclj.org   Its the American Center for Law and Justice.  They do a lot of work defending religion.
664710
I don't think they have a valid argument to sue and to do so would only bring up questions regarding some of the truths about the church that are brought to light by the film.. I don't think it would be in the best interest of the church to sue.. would only make me wonder if they are trying to cover something up!
1054647
Each state's laws are different, but the common elements of defamation are an untrue statement (expressing or implying facts, not pure opinion) of/concerning the plaintiff, that is published and harm's the plaintiff's reputation, resulting in damages. \n\nSlander is spoken defamation. In other words, the publication is transitory (verbal). Libel is written defamation, and most courts have found that includes publication through electronic media as well. Slander per se is spoken defamation that attacks one's business abilities/competence, or falsely accuses one of a crime (or a couple other things).\n\nIn the case of libel and slander per se, damages are presumed in most states. In other words, in those jurisdictions, the plaintiff doesn't need to prove how much they were hurt, just that the statement had some negative impact on their personal or professional reputation.\n\nProving harmful impact may not be easy, but it's generally easier than proving an actual dollar amount. \n\nAs far as the truth requirement, that's where constitutional issues come in. If the person being spoken of (the plaintiff) is a public figure, or the matter is one of public concern, then the plaintiff must prove that the speaker/writer acted with malice -- either knowing that the statement was false, or acting with reckless disregard for the truth/falsity. So, comments about famous people, elected officials, or those who have voluntarily chosen to be at the center of a public debate are all held to a higher standard for culpable mental state (intent/recklessness).\n\nIf the situation involves a public concern, but the person spoken of is a private citizen and not voluntarily at the center of debate, then the standard is negligence (carelessness). So, the Mayor's personal assistant, or an executive who didn't personally do anything wrong but works for a company like Enron or WorldCom. These are private individuals collaterally involved in a public controversy, and are afforded slightly higher protection.\n\nSo, first you should be asking these questions to a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your state, preferably one who has some experience in internet law and/or defamation cases. \n\nBut to address your question, you (and your lawyer) would need to be able to show every one of the elements of defamation, as defined in your state. You could start with the list above, to get a sense of how you would go about proving each element. If you can't meet the elements for defamation (as defined in your state) then you probably wouldn't have a case.\n\nEven if you do, your lawyer then needs to research the appropriate laws governing disclosure on the part of an Internet Presence Provider. There are a lot of special laws regarding what information they can and must provide, and how to get it.\n\nIn the end, it's an uphill and probably expensive battle. So, also ask yourself, how much is the fight worth to you?
138544
Yes you can (and it would be for libel, which is printed, as compared to slander, which is spoken). It does not matter if the piece is represented as fact or opinion and it does not have to have a financial effect on the person you are talking about. It only has to damage their character and reputation and be done in a public forum (which a blog would qualify as).\n\nThere are different rules for public officials and personalities as compared to regular people.\n\nBut yes, you can be sued for what you put in a blog, just like a newspaper, magazine or radio or television station ... you are putting out information into a public forum. And be careful, because even being found not guilty of charges will cost you lots and lots of money, so don't say anything that could even lead to a suit being filed ... it's why most media outlets spend big bucks on libel insurance and lots of lawyers.
998518
The ACLU has defended the constitutional rights of Christians and non-Christians alike. Check out the articles below about how the ACLU went to court to sue for the rights of Christian street preachers.\n\nThe ACLU exists to defend our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. The reason why there are more non-Christian cases brought to trial than Christian ones is simply because Christians are more frequently guilty of limiting other people's constitutional rights than of having their own limited.\n\nIncidentally, did you get in trouble for wearing a Christian t-shirt, or is this a purely hypothetical question? I'd be very surprised to find a school district where students were not allowed to wear crosses or t-shirts with Christian messages on them. In fact, at my son's high school, they allow freshmen and sophomore students who are not normally allowed to leave campus to have lunch off campus whenever the church across the street sponsors a free lunch in an attempt to convert heathens to their faith. I don't think you'd EVER see the same thing if it were a mosque or temple.
335596
Let's clarify. Religious faith is itself not a problem. Spiritual belief is not a problem. Personal adherence to religious practice is not a problem.\n\nA problem DOES arise, however, when one set of beliefs is forced upon others. An earlier poster mentioned the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Ignoring for the moment that this is a US idea, and not generally acknowledged by much of the rest of the world, there are several provisions in that amendment.\n\nTwo of them are that the government will not establish or endorse any religion [Establishment Clause], nor will the government stop individuals from having/sharing/expressing their own beliefs [Free Exercise Clause].\n\nThe major problems in the world that I see (relative to this topic) are that localized majorities have gotten together and enacted laws that enforce a particular set of religious and moral beliefs. This forces everyone to follow those beliefs (or else break the law). This is true whether you're talking about Judeo-Christian morals being imposed in the US, or political ideals counter to those morals being imposed in China, or state establishment of religion as in much of the middle east, etc. \n\nFor any sort of unified government, there would need to be an explicit and deliberate attempt to REMOVE all religious influences from any adopted legal codes. Otherwise, you'll always be stuck with the majority imposing their beliefs on  the minority. And that's just might-makes-right bullying, whether performed legislatively or otherwise.