Omar Bennett
Slander is a form of defamation, which is a false statement that damages someone's reputation. Libel is another form of defamation, but it is written or broadcast, whereas slander is spoken. Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation were treated more seriously than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. However, in the 1964 case of *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan*, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state's libel laws were subject to free speech protections of the First Amendment. This case, which arose during the Civil Rights Movement, established that a public official had to show actual malice to win a defamation case.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Libel and slander | Unprotected by the First Amendment |
| Libel | Similar to obscenity or fighting words |
| Libel laws | Can have a chilling effect on debate about public issues |
| Defamation case | A public official must show actual malice to win |
Explore related products
$0.99 $26.13
What You'll Learn
Libel and slander
However, in 1964, the Supreme Court recognised that libel laws could have a chilling effect on debate about public issues. In the case of *New York Times Co. v. Sullivan*, the Court established that a public official had to show actual malice to win a defamation case. This case arose out of the Civil Rights Movement, when the *New York Times* published an editorial advertisement detailing abuses suffered by Southern black students at the hands of the police.
Despite this, American and English law have traditionally treated libel as wholly without any free-speech protections.
The US Constitution: Protection for Non-Citizens?
You may want to see also
Libel and the First Amendment
Libel has historically been treated as a category of speech without any free-speech protections. Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation weighed more heavily in the legal balance than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. In 1942, the Supreme Court referred to libel as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words.
However, in 1964, the Supreme Court recognised that libel laws could have a chilling effect on debate about public issues. In the case of *New York Times v. Sullivan*, the Supreme Court established that a public official had to show actual malice to win a defamation case. The case arose out of the Civil Rights Movement, with the New York Times publishing an editorial advertisement in 1960 titled 'Heed Their Rising Voices' by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. The advertisement detailed abuses suffered by Southern black students at the hands of the police, particularly in Montgomery, Alabama. Two paragraphs in the advertisement contained factual errors.
In response to the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications, the Court replied that constitutional scrutiny could not be completely foreclosed by the 'label' attached to something. This case constitutionalised libel law, marking a shift in the treatment of libel and the First Amendment.
Animal Sacrifice: Religious Freedom or Constitutional Challenge?
You may want to see also
Libel and defamation
Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation weighed more heavily in the legal balance than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. Defamation, like many other common-law torts, was not subject to constitutional baselines. In fact, the Supreme Court famously referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words.
American and English law has a storied tradition of treating libel as wholly without any free-speech protections.
Texas Constitution: Safeguarding Lone Star State's Natural Treasures
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Libel and free speech
However, in 1964, the Supreme Court recognised that libel laws could have a chilling effect on debate about public issues. In the case of *New York Times* v. *Sullivan*, the Supreme Court established that a public official had to show actual malice to win a defamation case. This case constitutionalised libel law.
Despite this, American and English law have traditionally treated libel as wholly without any free-speech protections.
The Constitution's Tyranny-Fighting Powers: Explained
You may want to see also
Libel and the Supreme Court
Libel has historically been treated differently to other forms of speech in both American and English law, with no free-speech protections. Before 1964, state law tort claims for defamation were considered more important than the constitutional right to freedom of speech or press protected by the First Amendment. In fact, the Supreme Court referred to libel in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) as an unprotected category of speech, similar to obscenity or fighting words.
However, in 1964, the Supreme Court recognised that libel laws could have a chilling effect on debate about public issues. In the case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court constitutionalised libel law. The case arose out of the Civil Rights Movement. The New York Times published an editorial advertisement in 1960 titled “Heed Their Rising Voices” by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King. The full-page ad detailed abuses suffered by Southern black students at the hands of the police, particularly the police in Montgomery, Alabama. Two paragraphs in the advertisement contained factual errors. The Supreme Court established that a public official had to show actual malice to win a defamation case.
The Court replied to the contention that the First Amendment did not protect libelous publications, stating that constitutional scrutiny could not be completely foreclosed by the “label” attached to something.
Foreign Nationals: Constitutional Rights and Protections?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, slander is not protected by the constitution.
Slander is a form of defamation, which is a false statement that damages someone's reputation.
Libel is written defamation, while slander is spoken.
Yes, slander is a crime in many countries, including the United States.
The penalties for slander can vary depending on the jurisdiction, but they can include fines, imprisonment, or civil liability.
![A Treatise on the Law of Libel and Slander / by Franklin Fiske Heard 1860 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/617DLHXyzlL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
![Business, Defamation, and Privacy Torts: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61tgkXDBrjL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
