Isabella Carter
The terms slander and libel are not explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. However, the concept of defamation, which encompasses both slander and libel, is addressed in the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The First Amendment provides broad protections for speech and expression, but it does not shield false statements that harm the reputation of others, and courts have grappled with balancing free speech rights with providing redress for reputational harm. While there are no federal criminal defamation or insult laws, some states have criminal defamation/libel/slander laws, and the Supreme Court has addressed defamation and libel in several landmark cases, including New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, which established legal standards to ensure defamation laws do not limit legitimate speech.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Libel and slander laws in the US | Criminal defamation or insult laws are not present at the federal level. However, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation/libel/slander laws. |
| Libel and the First Amendment | Libel is a type of defamation that involves a false and damaging statement that is written or published. The First Amendment provides broad protections for speech and expression, but it does not protect false statements that harm the reputation of others. |
| Slander and the First Amendment | Slander is a type of defamation that involves a false and damaging statement that is spoken, rather than written. |
| Libel and slander in medieval England | In medieval England, defamation was a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or death. |
| Libel and slander in the US | Libel became a civil offense in the US, and the burden of proof shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the statements made were false and had caused harm. |
| Libel and the Supreme Court | In the 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew the information was false or that it was published with reckless disregard for the truth. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Libel and slander laws in the US
In medieval England, defamation was a criminal offense punishable by severe consequences, including imprisonment or even death. The English legal system made no distinction between spoken and written defamation, and both libel and slander were treated as criminal acts. However, in the 17th century, a crucial differentiation emerged between the two. Libel became recognised as a civil offense, shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff, who had to demonstrate that the statements were false and caused harm. This evolution laid the groundwork for the American legal system's approach to libel and slander.
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press, creating a delicate balance with defamation laws. While the First Amendment provides broad protections, it does not shield individuals from making false and damaging statements that harm the reputation of others. This distinction is crucial, as defamation law seeks to protect individuals' rights to protect their good name and reputation.
The landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 significantly reshaped libel law in the US. The Supreme Court recognised the potential chilling effect of libel laws on public debate and established that public officials must demonstrate actual malice to prevail in defamation cases. This ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court explicitly addressed the intersection of libel law and the constitutional right to freedom of speech.
While federal-level criminal defamation or insult laws are absent in the US, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation, libel, or slander laws. Additionally, Iowa has established defamation and libel as criminal offenses through case law, and South Dakota's Constitution allows for the possibility of criminal litigation against such offenses. However, it is important to note that these laws are rarely prosecuted, and the definitions of libel and slander continue to evolve through legal precedents and state-level variations.
Who Really Controls the Federal Executive Branch?
You may want to see also
Libel and slander in medieval England
Libel and slander were rampant in medieval England, and both were illegal under certain circumstances, especially when aimed at the monarch or members of the governing elite. The distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which they are communicated. Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form (i.e. words or sounds, sign language, gestures) then it is slander.
In medieval England, the law took defamation cases seriously for two reasons. Firstly, to prevent further crime, as the aggrieved might resort to violence; and secondly, defamation usurped the role of the courts, as the person was tried and found guilty by the community before an inquisition had taken place. For cases to be heard and have a successful outcome, they depended on the words used to frame the allegation and their context, as there needed to be a direct or indirect accusation of criminal activity. Simply calling a man a “peasant” or a woman a “scald” when they are not, would not be slanderous or defamatory, but calling a woman a “strong harlot” when she wasn’t, was. False accusations of adultery were of great concern, especially for the woman, who was shunned by her community.
In the late medieval period, the nobility used slander laws as a means to sue each other. Caution was needed when bringing a case against a noble, as a person of lower rank needed to avoid committing the crime of "Slandorum Magnatum", enacted in 1272 by Edward I and again in 1388 by Richard II, to stop the slander of "Great Men of the Realm". If a case was found to be vexatious, the plaintiff would face imprisonment, a trial in the King’s Court, and an unspecified punishment.
In medieval England, social conflict and its resolution were integral to everyday life, with many disputes settled through informal arbitration prior to or during the early stages of legal actions. Where public slander did generate litigation, this tended to appear in the ecclesiastical courts in England, as the role of the borough courts in settling cases of defamation was already in decline by the late fourteenth century. In the church courts, suits alleging defamation were initiated most often between non-elite men and women, people of low to middling status whose reputations mattered to their marital and economic fortunes more immediately and pragmatically.
The Ultimate Power Congress Wields: Lawmaking
You may want to see also
Libel and slander in state constitutions
In the United States, the discussion surrounding libel and slander is complex, as the definitions of these terms vary across different states. Some states have combined the laws governing slander and libel, while others have separate statutes. Notably, criminal libel laws exist in many states, albeit they are antiquated and rarely enforced. However, Washington State has deemed its criminal libel statute unconstitutional under both state and federal constitutions.
The distinction between libel and slander is important. Libel pertains to written or published false and damaging statements, while slander involves spoken words. To prove defamation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement in question was false, communicated to a third party, and caused harm to their reputation or resulted in other damages.
Prior to 1964, state law tort claims for defamation took precedence over the constitutional right to freedom of speech and press safeguarded by the First Amendment. Notably, in the 1942 Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire case, the Supreme Court categorized libel as unprotected speech, akin to obscenity or fighting words.
However, the landmark case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964 significantly altered the landscape of libel law in the United States. This case, which emerged from the Civil Rights Movement, established that public officials could only prevail in a libel suit if they could prove that the information was known to be entirely false or was published with a reckless disregard for its truth. This ruling prioritized the constitutional right to freedom of speech and press over defamation claims.
It is worth noting that while the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and press, it does not shield false statements that harm the reputation of others. As such, individuals can be held accountable for making false and detrimental statements.
What Constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel and slander in the First Amendment
Libel and slander are both forms of defamation. Libel refers to written or published defamation, while slander refers to oral defamation. In the United States, defamation is protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, this protection is not absolute, and individuals can be held liable for making false and damaging statements about others. The First Amendment does not protect false statements that harm the reputation of others.
The First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press provide defendants in the United States with a measure of protection from defamation lawsuits. This protection is particularly strong in cases involving public issues and public officials, where the Supreme Court has recognized that libel laws could have a chilling effect on debate. In the landmark case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court held that a public official must show actual malice to win a defamation case. The Court reasoned that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate" and that punishing critics of public officials for any factual errors would inhibit free speech.
Prior to 1964, state law tort claims for defamation were given more weight than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. Libel was considered an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words. However, the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case changed this by establishing that libel laws were subject to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. This case arose from an advertisement published in The New York Times that criticized actions taken by public officials in Alabama during the Civil Rights Movement. The Police Commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, filed a libel suit against the newspaper, alleging that the advertisement contained defamatory statements. The Supreme Court's decision in this case established legal standards to ensure that defamation laws do not limit legitimate speech.
While the First Amendment provides broad protections for speech and expression, it also acknowledges the need to address the harms caused by defamation. Courts must balance protecting free speech with providing redress for reputational harm. This balance can be challenging to navigate, and defamation lawsuits can result in expensive litigation and negative public views of the press. In conclusion, while libel and slander may be restricted to protect individuals' reputations, the First Amendment ensures that public discourse on issues of public concern remains uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.
Civil Constitution of Clergy: Power Grab by Napoleon?
You may want to see also
Landmark Supreme Court cases on libel and slander
Several landmark Supreme Court cases have helped define the concepts of libel and slander and their regulation under the First Amendment. Here are some examples:
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
In this case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of the New York Times, which had been sued by L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Court held that, in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with "actual malice". The Court's decision protected the right to publish all statements under the First Amendment.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)
This case involved an attorney, Elmer Gertz, who was labelled as a "Leninist" by a publication in Chicago. Gertz sued the publication, and the Supreme Court delineated the burdens of proof between public and private individuals and the applicability of "actual malice" in defamation law. The Court's decision established that public figures must meet a higher burden of proof than private citizens in defamation cases.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby (1986)
The Supreme Court required the application of the clear and convincing evidence standard to decide if a journalist had displayed actual malice. This case further refined the definition of "actual malice" and its role in defamation cases.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990)
This case involved a wrestling coach whose team was involved in a fight during a match, leading to a criminal investigation. A columnist for the News-Herald in Ohio stated in an opinion piece that the coach was a liar, implying he had committed perjury. The Court ruled that the coach had a right to sue under Ohio's libel laws, as opinions can still be considered libelous if they imply a false statement of fact.
Kaelin v. Globe Communications Corp. (1998)
This case is one of several that involve the libel concepts of defamation and invasion of privacy, as outlined in the Oyez Project's guide to Supreme Court cases.
Northwest Ordinance: Forging the US Constitution's Federal Framework
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, slander and libel are not explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution. However, they are both forms of defamation, which is protected by the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.
Slander refers to spoken defamation, while libel refers to written or published defamation.
Defamation is the act of making a false statement, or a series of false statements, about another person or entity, which harms their reputation.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) is a famous case involving libel. The New York Times published an editorial advertisement in 1960, titled "Heed Their Rising Voices", which detailed abuses suffered by Southern black students. L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel suit against the newspaper, alleging that the advertisement contained defamatory statements against him. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling established the "actual malice" standard for defamation claims involving public officials or figures.
![Business, Defamation, and Privacy Torts: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61tgkXDBrjL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
