Free Case Study On Governing Defamatory Expression And The Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress

The First Amendments legal concepts indicated in these case facts are defamation. It occurs when one makes a statement of purported fact that paints a person’s behavior or action as negative, and it tends adversely to damage the reputation of the person and that is communicated through publication to someone who is not the injured party. In this case, the defamation is in the form of libel.
The source of law that provides the legal test that should be applied in resolving this conflict is constitutional law. The U.S Constitution provides for the protection of rights of the citizens. The law on defamation stems from the Bill of Rights. Whereas the freedom of speech allows people to project their views and opinions about what is affecting, this protects one from suffering false allegations, unreasonable and undue embarrassment, and humiliation.
In this case, the judge would test whether Baxter infringed the rights of Alana Rivera and Donna Cabonna by publishing false allegation against them causing them to suffer unreasonable and undue embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress.
Baxter communicated through his attorney to Rivera and Cabonna accusing them of stalking her daughter, Raven Baxter. The intention of communicating to Rivera and Cabonna was to advise them on such behavior as opposed to taking legal action. Rivera and Cabonna submission that the information communicated was injurious to their reputation is contestable because Baxter’s attorney communicated with the intention of warning them against the behavior. On the contrary, Rivera and Cabonna feels that the message communicated to them reached the hands of a third party as provided for in libel law.
The court should throw out this case because Baxter did not publish the false allegation instead, he instructed his attorney to warn Rivera and Cabbona against stalking his daughter before he assumes taking a legal action.