agreed that my usage of the term slander was loose, not legal, more along the laymen's usage. I simply meant that it is a negative claim of the target.
As you've said its not slander unless proven false.
If I had had a long public life filled with actions whose only explanation are malice or irrationality, I don't think it would be slander, no, even if the argument wasn't very well constructed. That doesn't make it a good argument, I just don't think it qualifies as slander. (Or libel.) For one thing, slander or libel in the US has to be actually false.
That's not how libel and slander works. You not only have to prove that the statements were false, but that the accuser knew they were false and was deliberately malicious in spreading the falsehoods
The very concept of slander could be defined as "smoke without fire". Surely you agree that slander exists, whether or not it's the case in this particular situation?
Slander is spoken defamation, and defamation is by definition untrue statements.
So Truth isn't really a defense against a slander allegation; it's a refutation of that allegation. If the spoken words are true, they can't be defamatory, so they can't be slander.
reply