How do you determine what truth is in terms of slander?

Question

Can you give an example of how the court would define truth.

Answer 1

Any trial involves determination of issues of fact -- what happened, who did it, how and when, etc.

In the case of defamation (slander and libel), one of the issues of fact is whether certain allegations (statements) are objectively false, merely opinion, or factually true.

This determination of fact is made like any other -- based on evidence, documents, witness testimony, etc.

Answer 2

Despite the language being used in the law, "truth" is really more of a philosophical and moral concept. Courts deal with facts, not truth. Facts are any information that can be verified by reliable witnesses or physical evidence. I'm not a lawyer, but I would say that in concise layman's terms for a person to be held liable for slander or libel in a civil court in the U.S., all of the following have to be demonstrated:

1) He made a statement about somebody that cannot be proven (i.e. he said "That man is a no-good thief!" when there's no evidence he actually stole anything).

2) He had to be *aware* that the statement wasn't factual (i.e. he might only have repeated the false statement about the other man being a no-good thief after he obtained the bogus information from a trusted source such as a friend or a local newspaper, in which case he's not the one responsible for it).

3) What he said was actually intended as a statement of hard fact and wasn't merely just a statement of personal opinion (i.e. the guy he called a no-good thief is some politician who cut important public funds and voted himself and his buddies a pay raise, although he didn't commit literal theft under the law). Opinion and satire are protected under the 1st Amendment and cannot be construed as slander or libel (see link to article below).

4) The statement he made about the other person had to have actually injured him or his reputation in some way (i.e. he called the other guy a no-good thief, but nobody really believed him). A good example of this criteria is when Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler magazine) was sued by Jerry Falwell for stating in an article that Jerry got drunk and had an incestous affair with his mother inside an outhouse. But since nobody in the world ever took this claim seriously, Jerry couldn't claim that he suffered any damages.

Answer 3

What can be proved by objective evidence.

For example if John told Bob that Bob was a rat in front of Joe then Joe can testify in court that he heard John call Bob a rat. He is a witness to the event and can say he was there and heard it.

Slander is hard to prove. First you have to prove that what was said was an insult; second you have to prove that it was actually said; third you have to prove that the person who was the object of the insult was damaged.

If John told Bob that he was a “lying, cheating, thief and a poor banker”, while in the bank in front of Bob’s boss and other customers. Then John can say that he was a witness to the slander. Calling John a “lying cheating thief and a poor banker” in front of his boss will hurt John and doing it in front of the bank’s customers will hurt the bank and through that hurt John. This can be proved, especially if John’s boss answer with “John you are fired!”

However, if Bob can prove that John filed a bad report and lied about the amount of money in his drawer and he took that money home with him then he has proved that he told the truth and that was not a case of slander. Bob would need a copy of the bad report to prove the lie AND he would have to show that John somehow profited from that bad report because he bought something or had unaccountable money in his hands. The bad report by itself is not proof that John was a thief, but it can be proof that John isn’t a good banker. Finding money that John can’t account for in his possession could be proof of something wrong, but without the report to verify it John can’t prove that Bob stole that money. John could have “found” it.

Because John didn’t write a paper saying Bob was a “lying, cheating thief and a poor banker” it is NOT libel, it is only slander. If it was published in some durable form then it would be libel, if it is only spoken then it is only slander. In the case of slander almost the only kind of evidence would be from a witness. If a security camera or tape recorder recorded the conversation then it could be submitted as proof, but most security camera footage is silent and can’t prove what was said; unless the court accepted testimony from a lip reader.

According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander
“In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, internet blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.”

Answer 4

The whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Half-truths in a court of law will be treated as a lie, and thus punished for contempt of court also for obstruction of justice.

Answer 5

Slander is the telling of stories or lies that are not in any way facts and can be proven as such. Libel is the same thing but in print.