hhmunro wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 11:30pm:

I can not speak for Maxwell's command of English in general, but there does seem to be some confusion between the meaning of Slander and Libel... (Although to be fair he may have been slandered as well, and I just don't know about it...)

1  Defamation is split between libel and slander. Something spoken or written which lowers others' opinion of a person.

The defamation must be said in front of a third party for corroboration. The statement must be untrue otherwise it is not defamation.

What is defamation

Definition of defamation

2  This is a false statement made by one person about another which involves some imputation (accusation) which discredits that person's character, reputation or credit worthiness. A defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the subject of the statement. It can be communicated by, for example, spoken or written words, or by photographs, cartoons or effigies. In other words it can be communicated in any way in which meaning can be conveyed.

Difference between libel and slander

3  If a defamatory statement is spoken the defamation is slander. If it is written, it is libel. In addition libel also includes statements broadcast on terrestrial, cable or satellite television, on video, on film and possibly E-Mail bulletin boards. In the rest of this item the term defamation is used to cover both situations unless indicated otherwise.

4  Generally libel is considered as more serious than slander because of the enduring nature of the statement and consequently libel actions are more common than slander actions.

Statements which are likely to be defamatory

5  There is no easy way of telling what is or is not defamatory and it is really up to the courts to decide whether a particular statement is defamatory or not, taking into account the particular context and nature of the statement.

6  In general, any statement which tends to lower the reputation of the person referred to in the estimation of reasonable people is defamatory. It is worth noting that a statement which at first sight is quite harmless may, nevertheless, have a defamatory meaning because of the circumstances in which it is made. That may be because those to whom the statement is made have a special knowledge of particular facts. The statement is then defamatory by innuendo.

7  The list below gives some idea of the various kinds of statements which in the past the courts have considered to be defamatory. You should remember that this list is not exhaustive but simply illustrative. For example, statements which imply that a person is:-

    unfit for her/his particular job or occupation
    a criminal
    insane
    a thief or dishonest
    a drunkard or excessive drinker
    immoral or sexually immoral
    insolvent or bankrupt

8  In certain circumstances, the most outrageously defamatory comments, true or not, may be repeated, provided they are quoted accurately and fairly. This is because they are protected by absolute privilege and the originator of the statement cannot be sued. This applies to, for example:-

    contemporaneous reports in a newspaper, radio or television of judicial proceedings
    reports of what was said in the States
    quotations from or reprints of States (parliamentary) papers.

9  Some other statements are protected by qualified privilege. This covers statements which are published in, for example, reports of public meetings or non contemporaneous court reports. They may be repeated even if they are false as long as they are accurate and not made out of malice. This also applies to statements made in references and testimonials - see paragraph 10.

Defamation in references and testimonials

10 References which pass from one employer to another are covered by what is known as qualified privilege. This means that an employer can probably say what s/he likes about an employee. However s/he must not:-

    maliciously make false statements
    negligently make a wrong statement. An employer giving a reference about an employee owes her/him a duty of care. This means the employer could be sued for negligence if the reference/testimonial contains inaccuracies which result in the employee suffering a loss.

E-mails and the Internet

11 There has been a recent judgement in the UK that derogatory e-mails can be considered libellous and the employer on whose computer system the libel was e-mailed can be considered to be legally responsible.

12 Owners of Internet sites which contain information posted by the public are responsible for the content. An Internet Service Provider (Demon) in the UK was successfully sued for not removing libellous material when repeatedly asked to do so by the person being libelled.

Action

13 Legal action through a solicitor or advocate. Legal Aid is NOT available for such cases.

14 Person initially could write a letter to the person causing trouble and ask for it to stop otherwise legal action would be instituted.