Libel, slander and what has to be proved
Defamation covers false statements of fact that harm reputation. Libel is the written or otherwise fixed form, which includes almost everything published online; slander is the spoken form. The distinction matters mainly for proof of damages, since libel is historically treated as more serious and, in some categories, presumed harmful.
A claimant generally must show a false statement of fact about them, communicated to someone else, made with the required level of fault, causing damage. Each element does real work. A statement communicated to nobody else is not actionable, and a statement that is substantially true is not defamatory however damaging it is.
Actual malice and why public figures usually lose
Public officials and public figures must prove actual malice — that the speaker knew the statement was false, or published it with reckless disregard for whether it was true. Reckless disregard means the speaker actually entertained serious doubts about truth. Careless reporting, weak sourcing or failure to check are generally not enough.
The category extends beyond politicians and celebrities. Limited-purpose public figures — people who have voluntarily entered a particular public controversy — must meet the same standard for statements relating to that controversy. Private individuals need only prove negligence in most states, which is why identical statements can produce opposite outcomes depending on who they are about.
Opinion is not a magic formula
Prefacing a statement with “in my opinion” does not make it protected. What matters is whether the statement can be proven true or false. Pure opinion and rhetorical hyperbole are protected; a factual assertion dressed as opinion is not.
Defences and anti-SLAPP laws
Truth is a complete defence, and it need only be substantial rather than literal — minor inaccuracies do not defeat it if the statement’s gist is accurate. Privileges also protect statements made in court filings, legislative proceedings and, in many states, fair and accurate reports of official proceedings.
Most states have anti-SLAPP statutes designed to dispose quickly of suits aimed at silencing speech on matters of public concern. These allow an early motion that pauses discovery and requires the claimant to show a probability of success before the case can continue, frequently with mandatory fee-shifting if the motion succeeds. Their reach varies considerably by state, and their application in federal court remains contested.
Related Claims Elsewhere on the Site
These pages sit in other categories but turn on the same cause of action covered here.