Slander & Libel

[teacher]

Slander and libel also can refer to revealing information that may or may not be true, but cannot be proven, and is private/personal and/or defamatory.

For example, claiming that someone is a homosexual may be considered slander/libel, even if it is in fact true, if it damages ones reputation.

"Libel is written. Slander is spoken."

Good line. Anyone else ever notice that the character of Jameson is completely based on Gail Wynand? Even in the way that he tries to destroy Spidey with his newspaper.

OK, what if a person went to court, after being accused of using a friend's credit card fraudently, was ordered to pay restitution, which he had already done, and the plaintiff put an article in the paper because he was not happy with the outcome, claiming with no proof, that the person was going through a divorce and taking money out of his account, (in this statement, the part about the defendant going through a divorce can be proven as untrue), he also claimed the defendant received a money wire in an amount much larger than any money wire the defendant did receive, and this can be proven. Would this be considered libel and slander?

[Hal]

Libel is written. Slander is spoken.

I dont think this is true, but I'm not sure. As far as I know, the distinction is to do with the permanancy of the medium - if I typed something on MSN for instance, it would be slander rather than libel. And if I was speaking on TV then it would be libel. Basically, its ibel if (and only if) it makes sense to talk about the words being 'published'.

edit: The 'initiation of force' angle seems fairly dubious - it sounds like people have started off with the idea that slander must be punishable by law, and then tried to twist the meaning of the words 'force' and 'initiate' through linguistic contortions until they can be applied to it (I recall reading an analagous argument on another forum where someone claimed that public displays of nudity were an initiation of force because they made contact with your eyes without your consent, or something equally ludicrous). This sort of thing seems to reduce politics to a game, where the winner is the person who can successully bend words until they appear to cover exactly the things which he started off thinking they should, and nothing else.

edit2: sorry, just noticed this thread was over a year old, and the above poster bumped it up.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Would this be considered libel and slander?

It would be libel because it was written and was untrue (and because it constitutes an accusation). Libel is written and slander is spoken. The distinction has fallen into disuse because speech/writing no longer has the correlates with permanency that it used to, and both are subsumed by the broader concept defamation. I'm aware of no laws that treat libel and slander differently (in the US).

[Hal]

Libel is written and slander is spoken. The distinction has fallen into disuse because speech/writing no longer has the correlates with permanency that it used to, and both are subsumed by the broader concept defamation. I'm aware of no laws that treat libel and slander differently (in the US).

Fair enough, its always struck me as being a pointless distinction anyway. Out of interest (because you probably know more about law than I do), isaac's above claim that "it can still be libel if its true" is false, isnt it?

edit: actually rereading his post I'm not sure if he said that. He seems to be saying that it can still be libel if its true assuming that you cant _prove_ its true. I think this is correct - one of the things that unnerves me about libel is that the burden of proof seems to lie with the defendent.

Edited April 10, 2006 by Hal

[DavidOdden]

Out of interest (because you probably know more about law than I do), isaac's above claim that "it can still be libel if its true" is false, isnt it?

As I recall, UK law is different on some subtle points. In the US, truth is an absolute defense (we had a war that is rooted in that point, a couple hundred years ago) against the change of defamation. In the UK, this was not so 50 years ago, since the root of the law there is law about sedition, and the need to protect the crown from insult by revealing that the King is a wanker. I think there were changes to UK law more recently which I thought were within my lifetime, but I can't put my hand on the reference right now.

The law can't be predicated on suppositions about what is a fact but unproven. The legal requirement, which I think is perfectly just, is that if you are going to make an accusatory assertion about a person, you should be able to prove that assertion. The basic prohibition is against making accusations which damage a person, so the plaintiff has to prove that the accusations were made by the defendant and that they caused damage. The truth defense is a secondary legal device, like the insanity defense or the self-defense argument, and also analogous to a privilege defense (legislators may make damaging false accusations against people on the floor of the legislature with complete impunity). So the truth defense amounts to saying that while the defendant did commit the prohibited act, it was justified. Hence the defendant must prove that his act is indeed justified. There is a theory whereby false accusations aren't technically defamatory; I disagree with that theory (for other reasons), but my comments on that topic would be somewhat defamatory.

For instance, Ohio law (ORC 2739.01) states that "In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff. If the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts, showing that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of him. In such action it is not necessary to set out any obscene word, but it is sufficient to state its import." But the following section states "In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages." thus separating defamation from a defense against penalty.

[Hal]

Interesting, thank you.