Defamation is false information that harms a person’s reputation. Libel is written defamation, while slander is spoken. To sue for legal slander, the victim must prove that others understood the statement as defamatory. Defenses include truth, accident, consent, privilege, and opinion. Public figures must prove malice in defamation cases. Defamation per se assumes harm in certain cases. Standards for defamation vary by country.
Some people mistakenly use the terms “slander” and “slander” interchangeably, but the law makes a clear distinction between the two. Both terms refer to defamation, something false that is written or said, or even in some cases depicted in a pictorial or visual way, that will greatly damage a person’s reputation or diminish the respect others have for them. Libel is libel in writing and legal libel is libel spoken aloud.
A person who feels that they are the victim of legal slander must demonstrate this by meeting certain criteria if they intend to sue the person or institution they believe has defamed them. The criteria include evidence that at least one person, other than the one who believes they are being libeled, also understood the statement in question in the same defamatory light. A person accused of slander or libel can often resort to a strong defense based on the truth; if the statement or written material is true, it is usually not considered libel or libel. There are other defenses, including accident and consent.
Another important defense against legal slander is called privilege. The privilege is conferred on witnesses testifying in a courtroom, and the same privilege applies to attorneys arguing their cases. The privilege is also granted to lawmakers in certain circumstances, as well as to a judge who speaks from his or her bench. Another defense is opinion, in the sense that it can be argued that a statement that has been made as opinion is not libelous. Some courts, however, are no longer affected by this defense.
The average person may be the subject of legal slander or the alleged perpetrator, and so can public figures. In the mid-1960s, however, the United States Supreme Court ruled that public figures who accuse others of lawful libel or libel must prove that there was malice behind the words spoken or written, and the alleged libel or slanderer knew that what he was saying was false. Much of the statutory libel laws prior to that time were tried by the courts of various states under their own state laws. There are standards for statutory libel in countries other than the United States, and the criteria can vary from country to country.
Many courts will recognize a situation defined as defamation per se. In this case, the court has the option to assume that harm has been done to a person, such as if someone were accusing a person of suffering from a sexually transmitted disease. This may also involve slander against someone’s professional standing or slander against someone’s morals as judged by community standards.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
