– Advertisement –

Polemics Terms: Slander

by | Dec 6, 2015 | News | 0 comments

✪ Read this article ad-free and leave comments here on Substack

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 Modern American Soft “Jesus” is an Idol

The Modern American Soft “Jesus” is an Idol

The modern American imagination is an idol factory, and it has manufactured a version of Jesus that never existed. In this version, Jesus is soft-spoken, endlessly agreeable, and almost allergic to confrontation. He floats through the Gospels like a spiritual...

Why are Leftists Like David French Fascinated with James Talarico?

Why are Leftists Like David French Fascinated with James Talarico?

James Talarico Is the Exact Kind of Christian as David French Or maybe it’s clearer if we say it without the polite packaging—he isn’t one at all. Every few months the evangelical internet machine latches onto a new personality and suddenly the timelines start...

- Advertisement -

Subscribe

Store

Follow Us

- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -

You Might Also Like…

In a World Unraveling, God Still Reigns.

In a World Unraveling, God Still Reigns.

I wake up, grab my coffee, thumb the screen—and it’s the same grim parade, again. A man guns down a pregnant woman at a red light—her husband beside her—an unborn child erased in the same breath, and the system shrugs it off under the banner of insanity. Not...

The Modern American Soft “Jesus” is an Idol

The Modern American Soft “Jesus” is an Idol

The modern American imagination is an idol factory, and it has manufactured a version of Jesus that never existed. In this version, Jesus is soft-spoken, endlessly agreeable, and almost allergic to confrontation. He floats through the Gospels like a spiritual...

Liberals and Conservatives are Not “Equal But Opposite” Evils

Liberals and Conservatives are Not “Equal But Opposite” Evils

“Yes, Democrats are evil, but Republicans…” I always hear the David French types, the Phil Vischer types, the JD Greear types, attempt to argue that Republicans are some kind of “opposite” evil from Democrats. These center-leftists, for lack of a better term, will...

The Eastern Orthodox Icon Ruse

The Eastern Orthodox Icon Ruse

by John Carpenter Most serious American Christians are accustomed to engaging groups like the Mormons, with their sexually immoral con-man who wrote bad fiction full of provable absurdities, or Jehovah’s Witnesses, repackaging ancient Arianism, or even Roman...

- Advertisement -

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

This will close in 0 seconds

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. 👕

This will close in 0 seconds