Libel is a written or printed statement that harms a person’s reputation. Pictures, signs, and information broadcast on television or the radio may also be libelous. Individuals are most often the subject of libel, but businesses and groups may be libeled as well. Slander is similar to libel. However, slander involves spoken words that damage a person’s reputation.
Libel does not consist of writing or developing damaging material, but in showing it. If a writer of harmful material shows it to a person other than the subject of the material, the writer has published the libel.
In the United States, a person who believes he or she has been libeled can file a lawsuit in civil court. The plaintiff (person filing the charges) must prove three main things: (1) that something was published by the defendant, (2) that the published material was about him or her, and (3) that the material was defamatory (damaging) to his or her reputation. Possible defamatory statements include reporting that an individual committed a crime or that a person was repeatedly fired from jobs.
A number of rules in common law add to a plaintiff’s burden in a libel suit. For example, defendants cannot be convicted of libel for statements that are true, even if the statements are defamatory. In addition, the legal doctrine of “fair comment” protects defamatory matter that is clearly presented as opinion rather than as fact, as long as the writer is acting without malice and provides readers with the facts that lead to the opinion.
In 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents public officials from winning a libel suit against the press unless the press is guilty of actual malice. The court defined actual malice as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. In 1967, the court ruled that public figures must also prove actual malice when suing newspapers or other media. The court defined public figures as private citizens who try to influence the outcome of important public issues or who otherwise thrust themselves into the public spotlight.
In 1974, the Supreme Court ruled that private individuals do not have to prove actual malice in a libel suit. But they must at least prove that the media acted negligently in its reporting. In 1990, the court ruled that the First Amendment does not automatically protect defamatory statements of opinion from being found libelous. It said that the common law defense of “fair comment” provides sufficient protection.
Libel laws have come under heavy criticism. Some journalists complain that the mere threat of a libel suit may discourage important in-depth reporting. Many legal scholars believe the actual-malice rule is too confusing for juries. Some attorneys believe that the legal standards for proving that a person’s reputation has been damaged are too vague. Many attorneys also believe that the actual-malice rule makes it extremely difficult for a person to win a libel suit, even if his or her reputation has clearly been damaged.
