– Advertisement –

Polemics Terms: Slander

by | Dec 6, 2015 | News | 0 comments

THE POLEMICS DEFINITION

“Slander” is a term improperly used by many who oppose discernment or criticism in a way that colloquially means, “something I don’t like hearing” or “something that is spoken or written ill of someone I like.”

IMPROPER USAGE

  • Example: An article about Hillsong Church’s cover-up of homosexuals leading ministry is met with the response that the article is “slanderous,” even though the information presented is true.
  • Example: A polemicist discusses Todd Bentley’s marital affair while he was conducting the Brownsville Revival, and they are told that they are “slandering” Bentley by pointing out his moral failure.
  • Example: A pastor explains why theonomy is a sub-biblical teaching that Judaizes the Mosaic judicial law, and he is accused of “slandering” theonomy or theonomists, when all he has done is give his theological opinion about why the teaching is bad and has made no definitive truth claims that can be proven false.

THE TEXTBOOK DEFINITION

Join Us and Get These Perks:

✅ No Ads in Articles
✅ Access to Comments and Discussions
✅ Community Chats
✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive
✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉



From Websters-Merriam dictionary, slander is “to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone.” Slander is spoken, and is the counterpart of libel, defined by Websters-Merriam as “the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone.”

FURTHER EXPLANATION OF ACTUAL SLANDER OR LIBEL

Both slander and libel can be criminal offenses (although rare) in certain states or nations (for example). However, virtually no state or nation contains laws making criminal truthful speech (except for some nations that do not permit this when done towards magistrate or civil authorities). Most of the time, slander and libel is not a crime, but is a “tort” and subject to civil lawsuit.

To truly be classified as “defamation” (how slander and libel are usually prosecuted), it must have the following characteristics:

  1. First, the “statement” can be spoken, written, pictured, or even gestured. Because written statements last longer than spoken statements, most courts, juries, and insurance companies consider libel more harmful than slander.
  2. “Published” means that a third party heard or saw the statement — that is, someone other than the person who made the statement or the person the statement was about. “Published” doesn’t necessarily mean that the statement was printed in a book — it just needs to have been made public through television, radio, speeches, gossip, or even loud conversation. Of course, it could also have been written in magazines, books, newspapers, leaflets, or on picket signs.
  3. A defamatory statement must be false — otherwise it’s not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don’t count as defamation because they can’t be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, “That was the worst book I’ve read all year,” she’s not defaming the author, because the statement can’t be proven to be false.
  4. The statement must be “injurious.” Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement — for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won’t collect much in a defamation suit.
  5. Finally, to qualify as a defamatory statement, the offending statement must be “unprivileged.” Under some circumstances, you cannot sue someone for defamation even if they make a statement that can be proved false. For example, witnesses who testify falsely in court or at a deposition can’t be sued. (Although witnesses who testify to something they know is false could theoretically be prosecuted for perjury.) Lawmakers have decided that in these and other situations, which are considered “privileged,” free speech is so important that the speakers should not be constrained by worries that they will be sued for defamation. Lawmakers themselves also enjoy this privilege: They aren’t liable for statements made in the legislative chamber or in official materials, even if they say or write things that would otherwise be defamatory.

Three Ways to Support DISNTR


The Dissenter is primarily supported by its readers. The best way to support us is to subscribe to our members-only Substack site where you will receive all of our content ad-free, plus you will get member-only exclusive content.

Support us with a monthly donation on Patreon

Support us with membership to our ad-free Substack

Make one-time or monthly donation on Donorbox


👕 Or make a purchase from our online store. 👕
Make a Dogecoin Donation

- Advertisement -

Latest

The Reality of Eternal, Conscious Hell

The Reality of Eternal, Conscious Hell

There’s a growing fad in Evangelical circles—one as old as rebellion itself—where otherwise church-going folks suddenly decide that Hell isn’t real anymore. Not literal. Not eternal. Not conscious torment. Just a metaphor, a symbol, a poetic flourish Jesus used when...

2025 Ends With the Modern Sexual Revolution in Full Swing

2025 Ends With the Modern Sexual Revolution in Full Swing

We’re ending 2025 with a bang... We have foreign nationals and their leftist allies rising up against American law enforcement and immigration. We have Islamists in our federal government making threats against the American people. We have anti-American and...

- Advertisement -

Subscribe

Store

Follow Us

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

You Might Also Like…

The Reality of Eternal, Conscious Hell

The Reality of Eternal, Conscious Hell

There’s a growing fad in Evangelical circles—one as old as rebellion itself—where otherwise church-going folks suddenly decide that Hell isn’t real anymore. Not literal. Not eternal. Not conscious torment. Just a metaphor, a symbol, a poetic flourish Jesus used when...

2025 Ends With the Modern Sexual Revolution in Full Swing

2025 Ends With the Modern Sexual Revolution in Full Swing

We’re ending 2025 with a bang... We have foreign nationals and their leftist allies rising up against American law enforcement and immigration. We have Islamists in our federal government making threats against the American people. We have anti-American and...

False Teacher of the Day #61: Rich Tidwell

False Teacher of the Day #61: Rich Tidwell

Rich Tidwell makes today's installment as number 61 in our False Teacher of the Day series, a self-proclaimed reformer from Ormond Beach, Florida, leading Ormond Church while pushing a "Second Reformation" that's more like a regression into Old Testament chaos. This...

Part IV: The Harvest of the New Sexual Revolution

Part IV: The Harvest of the New Sexual Revolution

In Part I, we laid bare the ancient roots of this godless upheaval, tracing its path from the ashes of Sodom to the contraceptive-fueled fornication that birthed a culture of death and deviance. In Part II, we exposed the acceleration into transgender madness, where...

Tucker Carlson’s Theology is a Dumpster Fire

Tucker Carlson’s Theology is a Dumpster Fire

Tucker Carlson—the silver-tongued sage of cable news turned podcaster—can eviscerate a politician’s hypocrisy with a single raised eyebrow. We’ve cheered his political broadsides, nodded through his takedowns of woke absurdities, and admired his knack for exposing...

- Advertisement -

Want to go ad-free with exclusive content? Subscribe today.
Already a subscriber? Click Here

This will close in 0 seconds