Libel and slander are forms of defamation, which is an untrue statement presented as fact and intended to damage a person’s character or reputation. Libel is a defamatory statement made in writing, while slander is a defamatory statement that is spoken.
To be defamatory, a statement, whether written or spoken, must be made with the knowledge that it is false or with a reckless disregard for the truth, meaning that the person making the statement did not go far enough in determining whether it is true. When made against a private citizen, as opposed to a public figure such as a celebrity or politician, defamation can also be proven if the person making the statement should have known that it was false or should have more thoroughly questioned its veracity.
The kinds of false statements the courts may view as defamatory are broad, including statements that a person committed a serious crime, has a particular illness, or is incompetent in their job.
It’s important to note the difference between opinion and defamation. Statements that cannot be objectively proven true or false, such as “I think Bill is a jerk,” are considered opinion and thus are not defamatory. However, to say, “I think Bill embezzles money from work,” while an opinion, implies a fact that could be injurious to Bill’s reputation even if false. This is why news outlets commonly use the word allegedly when reporting on crimes that have yet to be tried in court.
One of the most important libel cases in recent history is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a 1964 case that established the concept of “actual malice” in prosecuting libel. It stemmed from a full-page advertisement, published in 1960, that described the oppressive conditions experienced by African Americans in Montgomery, Alabama—a flashpoint during the era’s civil rights movement. The ad contained minor false statements, and Montgomery police commissioner L.B. Sullivan sued the newspaper for libel on the grounds that the advertisement damaged his reputation. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the newspaper’s favor, reasoning that for a statement to be legally libelous, it must be made with “actual malice,” meaning with knowledge that the statement is false or with reckless disregard for whether it is false or not.
Whether a defamatory statement made via the Internet constitutes libel or slander remains unresolved. A handful of judgments specific to defamation via the Internet found for the complainants but did not rule on whether the defamation was libel or slander.