Fact check: What is the difference between libel and slander in US law?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, there is a clear and consistent distinction between libel and slander in US law:

• Libel refers to defamatory statements that are written and disseminated to a third party ^{[1] [2]}
• Slander refers to defamatory statements that are spoken aloud ^{[1] [2]}

Both forms fall under the broader category of defamation, which is defined as statements that injure a third party's reputation ^[3]. The fundamental difference lies in the medium of communication - written versus spoken words ^[2].

The analyses reveal that this distinction becomes more complex in the digital age, particularly on social media platforms where statements can be both written and spoken, and can be either permanently recorded or ephemeral ^[2]. This creates challenges in determining whether online defamatory content should be classified as libel or slander.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements that would provide a more comprehensive understanding:

• Historical legal precedents: The analyses reference significant cases like New York Times v. Sullivan, which established the "actual malice" standard for defamation cases involving public officials ^[4], but this crucial legal framework is not addressed in the basic distinction question.
• Digital age complications: The traditional libel/slander distinction becomes blurred in online contexts, where defamatory content can take various forms across social media platforms ^[2]. This modern complexity is not captured in the simple definitional question.
• Practical legal implications: The analyses mention various famous defamation cases and their outcomes ^{[5] [6]}, suggesting that the practical application of these concepts involves nuanced legal considerations beyond the basic written/spoken distinction.
• Burden of proof differences: While not explicitly detailed in the analyses, the sources suggest there may be different legal standards and requirements for proving libel versus slander cases.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation or bias - it is a straightforward request for legal definitions. However, the oversimplification inherent in seeking a basic distinction could be misleading because:

• It suggests the difference is always clear-cut, when modern digital communications have created gray areas where the traditional written/spoken distinction may not apply cleanly ^[2]
• It doesn't acknowledge that the practical legal consequences and standards of proof may differ between libel and slander cases in ways that go beyond the simple medium distinction
• The question doesn't account for the evolving nature of defamation law as it adapts to new forms of communication and media platforms

The analyses suggest that while the basic distinction remains valid, understanding defamation law requires consideration of broader legal principles, historical precedents, and modern technological challenges that complicate the traditional categories.