VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:23:18 11/09/01 Fri
Author: Anonymous
Subject: Here is your education DUMBASS, Hope you know how to read this one!!!!

Slander



Slander, in the law of torts, oral defamation or use of the spoken word to injure another's reputation, as distinguished from libel or written defamation. To be the basis of a legal action, a publication of the words complained of, that is, their utterances in the hearing of third persons, must demonstrably have taken place. Among statements considered slanderous per se are those that impute the commission of a felony, as by calling an individual a forger or murderer; that impute an individual to be suffering from an offensive disease, such as leprosy or syphilis; or that are injurious to an individual in his or her trade or profession, as by calling a doctor a quack. When the reputation of the injured party is not presumed to have been injured by the statement itself, the plaintiff must allege special damage or loss that was suffered as a result of the statement.

The party charged with the slander may hold, as a defense, that the words spoken were in fact true, inasmuch as true statements result in no injury to reputation. Definition of slanderous language is sometimes difficult. The disputed words themselves may not be slanderous but may hold a hidden meaning, or innuendo, that hearers may apprehend and that may therefore result in damage to the reputation of the slandered party. A defendant in a slander action cannot claim as a defense that another party had made the slanderous statement and that the defendant was merely repeating the statement; nor can the defendant claim that he or she gave the name of the informant and expressed no opinion as to the truth. In some cases words that would otherwise be considered actionable, or subject to laws of slander, may be uttered as a privileged communication. Speeches in the U.S. Congress or in a state legislature, or statements by lawyers in the course of legal proceedings, are examples of such immunity.

Suits for slander, applicable only to public figures, have become increasingly rare in the U.S. because of recent high court rulings, in some states, that in such cases malicious intent must be proved.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> just to make sure you can read -- Anonymous, 15:26:03 11/09/01 Fri

"The party charged with the slander may hold, as a defense, that the words spoken were in fact true, inasmuch as true statements result in no injury to reputation"


They were true, and I don't just say it, I HAVE PROOF!
So shove that in your pipe and smoke it DUMMY!


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-2
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.