Final answer:
Defamation is the overarching term that includes both slander and libel, which are false statements that harm reputation; slander is spoken, while libel is written. The landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan set high standards for public figures to prove defamation, requiring proof of 'actual malice.' Defamation of character is unprotected by free speech if it involves knowingly false statements.
Step-by-step explanation:
Difference Between Defamation, Slander, and Libel
Defamation is a broader term that encompasses both slander and libel. These are torts that involve the communication of false information that harms a person's reputation. Slander refers to defamatory statements made in a transient form, particularly spoken words or gestures, while libel refers to defamatory statements that are made in a fixed medium, such as written or published material. However, under the law, both slander and libel must consist of false information presented as fact, not opinion, and intended to harm the individual or entity's reputation.
In cases involving public figures, a landmark case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), set a high bar for public officials to prove defamation. They must demonstrate that the false statement was made with 'actual malice,' meaning the publisher acted with knowledge that the information was false or exhibited reckless disregard for the truth. Private persons, however, are not required to prove actual malice to succeed in a defamation lawsuit.
Overall, defamation of character can lead to a loss of reputation and possibly income, and even though the right to free speech is robust, it does not protect individuals or the media when they commit acts of defamation.