The Difference between Libel and Slander

  

Date Posted: 3/22/2012 1:27:05 PM

Posted By: maxwellgoko  Membership Level: Bronze  Total Points: 45

---

LIBEL
This is a defamatory publication in a form capable of permanency. It includes written matters like letters, or an article, scandalous pictures (where they are accompanied by a defamatory statement), news tapes, films e.t.c
In certain areas, the tort is specified by statute e.g. television and broadcast that are libel (s166 Broadcasting Act 1990) as are theatre performances (Theatres Act 1968).
The Defamation Act 1952 s1 provides that words/visual images broadcast for general reception are libel e.g. Youssoupoff v Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pictures Ltd. The claimant was a member of the Russian Royal house. The defendants produced in England a film dealing with the life Rasputin who had been the adviser of Tsarina of Russia. The film also dealt with the murder of Rasputin. In the course of the film a lady (Princess Natasha) who was affectionate towards the murder of Rasputin was also referred as having been raped by Rasputin, a man of the worst possible character. The claimant was married to a man who was undoubtedly by one of the persons concerned in the killing of Rasputin. The claimant alleged that because of her marriage reasonable people would think that she was the person who was so raped. The action was for libel.
Sale of libelous material
When libel is contained in a news paper, magazine or book the sale of every copy is prima facie a publication thereof, rendering the distributor and anyone involved with the sale of such is liable for libel. Sunlife Insuarance Co. v W H Smith 1933 The defendants were held liable for libel in a poster displayed at their book stall because of their negligence in not discovering the libel.
The liability for libel also extends to a librarian who stocks libelous books knowing or having reasons to suppose that they contain defamatory material.

SLANDER
This is a defamatory

meaning conveyed in a transitory form such as speech or gestures. It requires proof of damage.
In exceptional circumstances a slanderous statement is actionable without the need of proving damage. These exceptional circumstances are as follows:
Where the statement impute a criminal offence punished by imprisonment. Thomson v Bernard
Where there is an imputation of unchastity of any girl or woman (Slander of Women Act 1891 s1. Any words spoken and published which impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl shall not require special damages to render them actionable. Kerr v Kennedy
Where there is an imputation that the claimant is suffering from a venereal disease and possibly other contagious disease e.g leprosy which might cause him/her to be shunned and avoided.
Where there have been words calculated to disparage the claimant in any office, profession, business or calling by imputing dishonesty. (Defamation Act 1952 s2).However it is not necessary for the claimant to show that for example he lost his job but the remark must be one likely to lower his standing in his trade or profession. Lumbe v Allday the court decided that a statement that a clerk employed by a gas company associated with whores was not actionable per se because his quality as a clerk would be in no way diminished by his association with prostitutes. It is not enough that the words are abusive. Difficulties might arise if the words were said of a chartered accountant who is required to have knowledge of certain branches of law.

---

Next: The Defence of Consent and Assumption of Risk
Previous: Parties who may be defamed in Tort Law.