Final answer:
Slander is the oral spread of false information with intent to harm, whereas libel involves written statements. Both are forms of defamation, but public figures face higher standards to prove in court due to a precedent which requires showing 'actual malice'. Free speech protects opinions and true facts, not knowingly false information that causes harm.
Step-by-step explanation:
Slander involves the oral dissemination of false information about a person with the intention to cause harm. In legal terminology, this is a form of defamation of character, which can negatively impact an individual's reputation and income. Similarly, libel refers to false written statements that are damaging to a person's reputation. In the United States, legal precedent, particularly the New York Times v. Sullivan case, has established a higher threshold for public figures to claim defamation. They must demonstrate that the statements were made with 'actual malice', meaning the communicator knew the information was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
It is important to note that libel and slander laws do not protect opinions, which are constitutionally safeguarded, as long as they do not falsely represent facts. The media can publish negative and potentially harmful stories if they are based on opinions or true facts, thus exercising their right to free speech.
However, when false information is knowingly presented, it constitutes defamation, which is not protected under the right to free speech. Defamation laws are designed to balance the need for protecting individuals from untrue and harmful statements against the necessity for freedom of expression and a free press.
In the context of bullying and cyberbullying, using slanderous or libellous statements can cause serious emotional and psychological harm. The impacts of these actions on individuals, especially youths, can be profound, sometimes leading to considerations of self-harm.