Slander vs Libel

In legal terminology, defamation is defined as a false accusation, or a misinterpretation of someone's action or words, which eventually hampers the reputation of the said person. It is an act wherein an individual or an entity make a false claim about another individual or entity, and cause damage to their reputation. Basically there are two forms of defamation - slander and libel. Even though they are two different concepts, lack of knowledge among the general public often tends to bring them at loggerheads. In order to understand the prominent points of distinction in slander vs libel comparison, one has to understand each of these concepts individually.

What is Slander?
The term slander refers to false accusations most often made verbally, but sometimes in form of bodily gestures, with the intention of defaming an individual or an entity. In a broad sense, the term covers any defamation that can be categorized as transitory, instead of permanent. In a public meeting, a person falsely accusing his rival of serving a prison term for a felony amounts to slander, irrespective of whether his reputation is already damaged or there are chances that it can be damaged due to this accusation. According to the slander laws, the onus is on the person who files the defamation lawsuit, to prove that the said statement or gesture led to defamation of character, and/or eventually resulted in financial loss for him. That being quite difficult to prove, most of the cases of slander don't go to the court of law.

What is Libel?
The term libel, on the other hand, refers to the false accusations, most often in form of some fixed medium, which damages the reputation of the concerned person or entity. This form of defamation most often covers written material or published pictures which tend to defame the individual or entity. A soccer player, in his autobiography, falsely accusing his previous club of game fixing amounts to libel, as it defames the reputation of the said club. Libel is relatively easier to prove in the court of law, as the victim has enough evidence to prove that he has suffered damage to his reputation, which has to be compensated, most often, in terms of financial loss.

Slander vs Libel
After going through both the concepts, you will realize that the foremost difference between slander and libel is the fact that the former is a case of verbal (oral) defamation, while the later is a case of published (written) defamation. But that doesn't mean the slander libel difference is restricted to this point only. Slander and libel lawsuits differ from each other as well. In case of slander, the person who has made these statement doesn't have to prove that the statements he made are true, instead the person suing for slander has to prove that the defamatory statements made against him are false. The case is not the same in case of libel, wherein the complainant has proper evidence to prove defamation, and seek a compensation for the same. In cases of slander, the person being charged with defamation can take a stand that he didn't defame the complainant intentionally. Lack of evidence also makes the case weak for the complainant. If the person being charged for defamation is a prominent public figure, the task becomes even more difficult as the complainant doesn't just have to prove that the accusations made against him are false, but also prove that the person who defamed him did it intentionally.

This was an attempt to simplify the various points of distinction in slander vs libel comparison. Going by the guidelines set by the Supreme Court of the United States, only factual interpretation, and not a person's opinion, can be considered to be a slander or libel. Even though the freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights in democracy, one has to ensure that he doesn't use it to malign the reputation of others. The basic fact is that defamation, irrespective of whether it is slander or libel, is an illegal activity, which doesn't fit into the legal or moral framework of the society.