Lions and Libel and Slander, Oh My!

By Dustin Herlich
Science Editor

li•bel n.
1. a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
b.The act of presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.


slan•der n.
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

(The above courtesy of www.dictionary.com)


The second piece in my ongoing series of journalistic ethics is going to deal with libel and slander. I think it’s of a timely and useful nature, and I hope you will all enjoy our little trip down legal lane. Some of you know of libel simply from the quote in the first Spiderman movie: “libel is print, slander is spoken.” Now we’ll get into what actually is libel and slander. Aside from being against University guidelines, it’s also an actual legal matter, often decided upon in court of law.

For the most part, I’ll be using the words libel and slander interchangeably, as the laws that cover them are pretty similar, and what is considered libel and slander is also very similar. The chief difference is what form of media the attack appears in. Questions of libel and slander are often difficult to answer, and lines often blurred.
The most important thing to remember about libel and slander is that it’s easily avoidable.

Step one: Don’t print conceivably negative information about someone, especially if it is untrue.
Step two: if you print something about an individual, especially when it relates to their character; make darn sure it’s correct.

If you do have a piece that speaks of someone personally, or really tears into their performance on a job, etc., make sure that this person is a public figure. You really can’t just talk about how much you hate your neighbor Bob because he has a nicer lawn then yours. If you go after someone, and they are not considered a public figure, you can get in a lot of trouble. Don’t use their name, and don’t give too much specific detail about that person. Saying something like “a person I know does _____” is one thing, but saying “the guy who lives at 34-76 East Elm Street is a moron” is another. Public figures don’t enjoy the same protection of their privacy, and as such, can be spoken about with a few more liberties. The assumption is that if someone is a newspaper editor, actor/actress, university president, etc., they are accepting the scrutiny of the public eye to a degree. Being critical of politicians and others is an important right of having free speech.

However, you still can’t just say whatever you’d like about a person. You can be sued for libel and slander, but for the offended party to win a case, they have to prove some very specific things. Firstly, it has to be proved that the offended party is in fact not part of the public eye, and whatever they are being supposedly being libeled for are matters not open to criticism. Secondly, it has to be proven that the offended party’s reputation, either socially or professional was injured in some manner. If I print a hate letter about Joe Schmo in the newsletter that circulates only to my housemates, unless Joe Schmo lives in the house, I can’t get in much trouble. There has to be a provable effect of the piece. If there is no proof of damage to a particular person’s reputation, then the suit won’t hold much water.

To answer a few questions people have asked me, I’ll go into some more technical specifics. One of the most important specifics to remember is that name-calling and words said in anger don’t count. Again, it needs to be specifically untrue things that can be shown to have harmed a person. Things that are simply offensive and insulting don’t count. For instance, if I were to write an article about Press editor Joe Filippazzo and call him all kinds of horrible names, I couldn’t get in trouble. But if I write a piece about how Joe subsists on a diet made entirely of the blood of babies, he might have cause to sue me. Although, proving damage might be difficult, as that claim may even gain him more respect around the office.

Essentially, a libel or slander suit is a defamation suit. If you’ve been defamed, you have cause, if not, suck it up. Libel and slander laws constantly have to teeter on the edge of conflicting with the First Amendment, but in general, cases that actually are won are fairly obvious and clear. It must also be said that government entities cannot sue in matters of libel or slander, although a government official can bring suit for statements about the official that are of a personal nature. One thing that many people don’t know is that libel is a civil matter, and the worst that can happen is the plaintiff can sue you for all the money you’ve ever had and then some. In other words, awards are solely monetary, if awarded. If you are found guilty of libel, you can’t go to jail, or have a criminal record of any kind. There are a few states where defamation is considered a criminal offense, but even so, I’d imagine jail time for defamation to be almost unheard of.

To conclude, I’d like to point out a few things that might help someone faced with a prospective libel or slander suit. Plaintiffs winning these suits is actually a rare occurrence, and almost unheard of when media and reporters are involved. Free speech laws do protect journalists in most cases, and proving that a journalist knew a story was wrong, and still had it published regardless is very hard to do. Libel cases can also only be brought to court by living persons, and entities which the law itself can refer to as “persons.” Representatives of the deceased, etc. cannot sue for libel. While libel and slander are mostly left up to individual states to legislate on, what I’ve written here holds true for the most part in all the states in the Union.

Originally printed in The Stony Brook Press.