SLANDER (OF. eselandre. esclaunclre, esean dre, escandle, escandcle, seandele, from Lat. scan dalum, from Gk. crKciv3aXov, skandulon, SetnOpov, skandalf'thron, stumbling-block, snare, offense, scandal; connected with Int. scandcre, to climb, Slat. strand, to leap). Defamation which is committed by way of speech : that is. either by vocal sounds or by the sign language of the deaf and dumb. English law distinguishes sharp ly between libel (q.v.) and slander. The latter is "actionable only when special damage can he proved to have been its proximate consequence. or when it conveys imputations of certain kinds." An enumeration of these special imputations, as they existed at common law. will be found in the article on DEFAMATION. In England and in many of the United States the oral imputation of un chastity to a female has been declared action able by statute, without proof of special damage.
Although slander is one of the few torts in which malice (q.v.) is an essential element, that term, in this connection, means only that the defamation must have been uttered without just cause or excuse. Actual ill will on the part of the speaker toward the plaintiff is not necessary, unless the occasion of its utterance was condi tionally privileged, as in the case of a statement by a master about the character of a servant made to one whose inquiries he may lawfully answer in good faith.
Inasmuch as slander consists in uttering words to the injury of another's reputation, it follows that they must have been uttered to, or in the hearing of, third persons who understood them.
It is not essential, however, that the speaker knew of the presence of the others. Even though' they were concealed from him, if they overheard his slanderous words, a case of 'publication' by him is made out. Nor is it any defense to one who reports a slanderous statement that he gave the name of his informant and expressed no opin ion as to its truth. Of course, the truth of the defamatory matter may be set up as a defense; for the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a reputation which he ought not to possess.
It is sometimes difficult to determine whether particular language is slanderous or whether it is only 'fair comment.' This difficulty is gener ally one of fact, however, to be solved by the jury. The rule of law on this topic seems to be as follows: Where a person has done or published anything which may fairly be said to have in vited comment. every one has a right to make fair and proper comment thereon. He may free ly criticise such acts or publications: but his criticism be limited to their character and consequences, and not directed against the person ality of the actor. Consult: Odgers. A Digest of the Law of Libel and slander (London, 1896) ; Newell, The Law of Libel and Slander (Chicago, 1898) : Pollock, The Law of Torts (London and New York. 1901).