Slander is saying FALSE information about someone in an attempt to reduce or damage their reputation.
the person slandered must also be able to prove damages.
i see alot of people mis-using the interpretation of the law to suggest that any discussion of a personal life is slander...
it is not.
it only becomes slander when the discussion of one's personal life contains FALSE statements.
if a person sought to sue another person for slander - they would have to prove how the statements were false - and how they were used to ruin or damage a reputation.
i have never witnessed an act of slander on this site...
"Slander is the oral communication of false statements that are harmful to a person's reputation. If the statements are proven to be true, it is a complete defense to a charge of slander. Oral opinions that don't contain statements of fact don't constitute slander. Slander is an act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Slander is a subcategory of defamation.
The basic elements of a claim of slander include;
a defamatory statement; published to third parties; and which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false. Slander is primarily covered under state law, but is subject to First Amendment guarantees of free speech. The scope of constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion on matters of public concern that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion. If the slander unjustly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the court or jury can assess the damages. For other types of slander you generally must prove some actual damage to be able to recover."
on March 21, 2011, 1:59 am