is slander a crime even if the slander is true?

Question

if someone makes an unproven accusation for which they have no evidence...but subsequently the accusation is proved correct, what does the law say? If the accuser genuinely had no evidence and was basing their claims on conjecture, even if they are vindicated eventually, could they still be had up?

Answer 1

Truth is an absolute defense to a slander accusation.

Answer 2

I always thought truth is not slander. That was till I wrote in my journals at writing.com all the time and found out that some people could consider what I wrote slander simply coz they work hard at trying not to seem the way I wrote about them...or coz I could appear to be bitter and tainting the writing.... LOL. But...when people see the truth...I guess it's really not slander...and the truth...always shows eventually.... I was right.... It's not a crime to speak the truth. But you must have PROOF or else others will think you are lying or trying to start trouble....

Answer 3

First of all, slander is not a criminal tort, it is a civil one only. No one can go to jail for slander; only sued monetarily for damages.

It would be walking a fine line as slander is based on malicious intent and making false statement to ruin someone's reputation. If it could be proven that their was malicious intent with no evidence at the time, it is possible that a civil lawsuit for slander could be won in the Courts.

Answer 4

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, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

A Libel, within the context of admiralty law, is the equivalent of a lawsult, and the "libellant" (or libalent) is the equivalent of a plaintiff in an action at law.

Answer 5

Your question is circular at best.

Slander is not slander if the statements are true. Therefore, your question doesn't make sense.

What I believe you are attempting to state is can something be considered slander without proof (at the time) that the statements are true and the answer to that is YES.

AND BY THE WAY:

Slander is NEVER a crime, it is a civil tort.

Answer 6

Facts are the key in court and opinion is just that. You can get the point across with out slandering someone just have the facts to back it up. Photos , video, documentation, can make all the difference.

Answer 7

The rapid Boat classified ads against Kerry improve into no longer slander. that they had protection tension documents to lower back up each little thing they stated. If it improve into slanderous he could have sued them, a minimal of gotten an injunction to end the classified ads from working. even however, Petraeus improve into appointed to his place very almost unanimously by ability of dems & reps alike, has a stellar protection tension occupation, his PhD and has been in 3 wars (ie he might desire to do very nicely in the deepest sector) and to truly call him a traitor - a time era punished by ability of demise in his chosen occupation IS SLANDEROUS. verify your dictionary, the definition of traitor is "guy or woman who betrays one's u . s . a ." - no longer a tremendous leap from moveon's advert.

Answer 8

Something that is the truth CANNOT be slanderous. Slander is a malicious LIE which impunes a person's character. If this person did indeed do something bad to impune his name, he ruined his good reputation/name on his own, and if someone brings up what he had done,this is NOT slander, it is the truth.

Answer 9

Sounds like QB7 to me

Adam Kelno has made it to England in the days following World War II. Having escaped from a death camp in Nazi Europe, he finds that his identification with anti-communists in Poland has made him a target of the Soviet Government, which brings up war crime charges against him in England. When the witness is unable to identify him as one of the doctors who castrated him, he is released. Kelno takes his wife and young son to Arabia where he labors for years upgrading public health standards. Upon his return to England he is Knighted. Twenty years have passed and he has just begun to enjoy his life of renown when a book is published that names him as a willing participant to Nazi medical experiments on Jews in the camps. He sues for defamation and finds that not only can he not escape his past, but that the plaintiff a defamation case has his own reputation on trial. QB VII refers to the courtroom in which the trial is held, Queen's Bench, Room 7

Answer 10

It can't be both. It's can't be slander if it's true. At the start it's only an accusation. It's not slander.