Libel is the defamation of another person in writing. (Slander is the spoken version of defamation.) Defamation is the publication of false statements of fact that harm another’s reputation. Anglo-American law has long recognized that a person who is defamed by another can sue for money damagers. Since the 1960′ s, American libel law has sought to balance this remedy against the public interest in a vigorous press.

In order to prove libel in a court of law, a person must be able to demonstrate several things.

1. The expression must be false. In almost all cases, the person suing must prove that the accusations are significantly untrue. Truth is an absolute defense to a libel claim.
2. The expression must be defamatory. A significant group of reasonable people would find that the article causes them to lower their opinion of the person who is suing. In most cases, the person must prove that he or she has, in fact, suffered damage to his or her reputation or to his or her professional career. Accusations of criminal behavior are typically presumed to cause damage to reputation.
3. The expression must be a statement of fact, as opposed to a statement of opinion. The test is whether the expression is capable of being proven true or false. Pure opinions by their very nature, cannot be proven true or false. They are subjective perceptions of an individual or group. Thus, obvious satire will not be libelous if it is clearly recognizable as such to a reasonable reader. Note well that the words “alleged” or “in my opinion” do not necessarily make factual assertions into opinions.
4. The expression must be published by the publication. The speech must have been communicated by the publication to at least one person besides the person suing. Otherwise, there would be no damage to reputation.
5. The expression must be of and concerning the person who is suing. The libel plaintiff must prove that reasonable readers believed the defamatory material in the story referred to him. The article need not refer to the person by name; the test is whether a sufficient number of people who read the story reasonably believe it was about the plaintiff.
6. The expression must have been published with the requisite degree offault. The person suing must show that the journalist was at fault in getting the story wrong. The standard of fault depends on whether the plaintiff isa public official/public figure or a private person and can range from requiring evidence of an actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth – the standard the applies to public officials and public figures – to negligence (not exercising a reasonable amount of care – the standard that typically applies to private individuals). This is an issue to be debated only after publication; to discuss whether the news organization would be at fault for publishing inaccurate material before the story is printed can be used to demonstrate evidence of malice or negligence.

Journalists should always be prepared to explain how they could defend the accuracy of any factual statement in a story (and editors should be prepared to ask them to do so when libel concerns are raised). How reliable and credible are the sources? Is there more documentation? Will the sources (people or documents) be available one or more years in the future if you are sued?