Defamation is the act of writing or speaking false statements to a third party that can damage a person’s reputation. It is a crime and a tort.
Slander vs. libel
Defamation occurs when a person or group makes false statements about another that cause reputational damage. These accounts can be found in various locations, such as magazine articles, radio, and television. Defamation is often associated with public figures. But it can also happen to smaller groups.
A slander is a statement made with malice or without good intentions. It is usually considered a temporary form of defamation. This type of statement is harder to prove in court.
In a civil trial, a slander case can be filed against a defendant who makes false claims about another. To win, the plaintiff needs to show the defendant was at fault and that the statement was defamatory. This is not always easy to do, though.
Hiring a lawyer is the best way to determine whether you have a slander case. You can find several attorneys specializing in slander cases on the internet. During your consultation, you can get a clear understanding of your options. You can also get an upfront time estimate.
Rhetorical hyperbole
Defamation lawsuits often arise from heated political debates. In such a case, rhetorical hyperbole protects exaggerated speech. The context and meaning of the address reveal whether it was saved as rhetorical hyperbole.
Rhetorical hyperbole is defined as statements that can’t be interpreted as factual. While there’s no way to prove true or false information, the First Amendment prohibits such speech. In many cases, rhetorical hyperbole is used by sportswriters, editorialists, and protestors.
One classic example of rhetorical hyperbole is the case of Ferlauto v. Hamsher. The case involved a developer who argued against limits on real estate development. His comment was deemed “rhetorical hyperbole.”
The U.S. Supreme Court also recognized the defense of rhetorical hyperbole in Letter Carriers v. Austin. The court noted the word “scam” and the phrase “half a deck.” The term did not convey criminal intent, but it was a loose, figurative language that could carry a defamatory meaning.
Seditious libel
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, seditious libel was a common law crime in England and America. The offense was defined as a statement that is false and that threatens the stability of the government. This could include criticism of the king or other public officials.
In the early 1700s, the colonial governor of New York tried to prosecute John Peter Zenger under seditious libel laws. The defendant had published an anonymous piece in the New York Weekly Journal critiquing the Crown’s appointed governor, William Cosby. The trial was held in the Star Chamber of the king’s council.
The trial was condemned by a CPJ board member, James C. Goodale, who presented a brief on the trial’s opening day. Ultimately, the conviction was reversed.
During World War I, seditious libel began rearing its head in the United States. As a result, the Sedition Act of 1798 prohibited publishing false writings about government officials. This was a response to the concerns of many Americans about the potential for seditious libel to undermine the credibility of the government.