“Every man has a right to the enjoyment of a good reputation unassailed, as he has a right to life, liberty, or property. It was long ago said that ‘[a] good name is rather to be chosen than great riches.’ Prov. XXII:1. A suit for defamation is based on the injury done to reputation.” One of the only ways to remedy an injury done to the reputation of a person is by action for defamation.
There are basically 2 different forms of defamation: slander actions, which seek recovery for words spoken, and libel actions, which seek to recover for words written or printed.
Whether a particular publication is defamatory is a question for a jury. “Where two constructions can be placed on the statements, one allowing the inference of [defamation] and the other not, this can be said to be ambiguous, requiring jury determination rather than a legal determination by the trial court.” However, if the statement is “unambiguous”, the judge can make a determination as to whether the statement is defamatory.
When the statement is libelous (published in a written form), the damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation is presumed and thus he or she doesn’t have to show that there was an actual economic loss as a result of the publication. However, when words are spoken, and are thus considered slanderous, the law considers them to be “fleeting” in terms of actual damage to reputation.
The big exception to the requirement of proving that the Plaintiff was financially harmed by spoken words is the category of Slander Per Se. Slander Per Se exists when the Defendant has published (either spoken or written) statements which say that 1) the Plaintiff has committed a serious crime, 2) the Plaintiff has a contagious “loathsome” disease, 3) the Plaintiff lacks moral fiber, or 4) saying the Plaintiff is a corrupt or untrustworthy business person.
Keep in mind, the truth is always a perfect defense to defamation. The only way a statement is defamatory is if the statement is false. Also, publication (telling at least 1 other person) is essential, too. If the Defendant only told you that you are a “low down dirty dog”, chances are you don’t think any less of yourself, and your reputation is not scarred.
A final, and pretty important defense I would like to mention is that of media liability. Under New York Times v. Sullivan and Georgia’s immunity laws, certain media publications on certain subjects or sources from certain documents can be privileged communications either under the First Amendment to the Constitution or State Law.
If you feel you have a defamation claim, you should talk to a lawyer. Call 478-227-3879 if you’d like me to answer any questions you may have.