Defamation is directly linked to one's reputation. The act of defamation is any form of communicating false statements about a person, place, or entity that causes damage to the reputation. There are two forms of defamation. The spoken word is called slander, and the written word is called libel. Either is considered a civil wrong or tort. State laws concerning defamation vary widely. That's why if you intend to pursue a case for defamation, it's crucial to work with a lawyer with experience in this law area within your state.
Morgan and Morgan have offices across the country with dedicated lawyers well-versed in the nuance and complexity of defamation cases, including if the defamation is criminal in nature and the possible defenses the offending party may use.
Throughout history, civilized society has concluded that defamation is unacceptable. Punishment has ranged from cutting out the tongue of the offender to imprisonment and, in modern times, to financial liability for any damage caused. However, there is a distinct difference between articulating an opinion and defamation under the law.
For example, if someone states, "I think Luis spends too much time thinking about himself," that is their opinion. There is no way to prove demonstrably whether that is a false statement in regard to how Luis thinks, feels, and acts. However, if the same person says, "I think Luis stole company funds earmarked for charity," that is still an opinion but infers that Luis committed a crime. If the statement is untrue, it could amount to defamation. For this reason, the news media wisely reports on "alleged" crimes. Even when reporting on a convicted murderer, they'll refer to the individual as a "convicted murderer," not a "murderer."
Still, to meet the requirements of defamation, the person making statements about our imaginary Luis being a thief would have needed to know that the statement was untrue or have made the statement with reckless disregard for the truth. Reckless disregard for the truth means the person was either highly aware of the likelihood that the statement was without merit or had serious doubts about the legitimacy of the source where they learned the information yet made the statement as if it were fact anyway.
However, there is a clear difference in how the law handles defamation, depending on whether you're a public figure or a private citizen. If a private citizen is defamed, the offending party may be held financially accountable for any losses incurred if they made a defamatory statement with negligence. In this instance, negligence means the person making the statement should have reasonably known it was false or at least questioned it before expressing themselves. It is far easier for a private citizen to satisfy the requirements of a defamation lawsuit compared to a public figure.
For public figures to be successful in a defamation lawsuit, they must prove the statement was defamatory and that it was made with actual malice (or an intention to inflict harm.) The requirement for the element of malice makes it exceedingly difficult for public figures to win a defamation lawsuit. This means that when they are successful, the evidence must have substantially proven the malicious state of mind of the offender.
While illustrating the mind of a person that defames another may seem impossible, the courts may allow other supporting facts to demonstrate malice, such as a preexisting condition between the two parties that would naturally cause the desire for revenge or other acts or statements by the defaming party that shows a desire to injure the plaintiff.
Still, the defendant can counter these arguments and show an absence of malice. For example, if they had an honest belief in the validity of their statements because it was based on information from an unimpeachable and trustworthy source. Another defense is that they made the statements with an honest motive to protect the public from the fraudulent character of the plaintiff.
However, the courts recognize that a false statement made against the reputation of another still has the power to harm, even without the motive behind it being bad blood. Still, if the defendant knew the statement was false when it was made, the reasons were unjustified, or they were indifferent to the effects and refused to make a retraction, these actions together can infer malice.