The intention is to state the rules and principles, as far as possible, without legal technicalities, and to include only such portions of the law on the subject as may be necessary or essential for the accomplishment of the double object desired.
For the purposes of the newspaper writer, libel may be defined as malicious defamation, either written or printed, charging on or imputing to another that which renders him liable to imprisonment, or tends to injure his reputation in the common estimation of mankind, or to hold him up as an object of hatred, scorn, ridicule or contempt.
Slander is malicious defamation by speech or oral language; hence the newspaper writer has no especial concern for the law relating to it, further than to remember one general principle—that the law of libel is much stricter than the law of slander. Thus, one may apply to another orally words of personal vituperation and abuse that would not render him liable in a suit for slander, but which if published of another in a newspaper would be libelous and actionable.
The definition of libel here given is broad enough to cover all the experiences of the newspaper office. But the character of defamatory publication that is brought within its scope is best shown by the language of the courts in individual instances.
ACTIONABLE LANGUAGE
Language in writing has been held to be actionable per se which "denies to a man the possession of some such worthy quality as every man is a priori to be taken to possess"; "which tends to bring a party into public hatred or disgrace"; which "tends to degrade him in society"; which "tends to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule"; which "reflects on his character"; which "imputes something disgraceful to him"; which "throws contumely and odium on him"; which "tends to vilify him"; which "tends to injure his character or diminish his reputation"; which is "injurious to his social character"; which "shows him to be immoral or ridiculous"; which "induces an ill opinion of him"; which "detracts from his character as a man of good morals"; which "imputes to him a bad reputation" or "degradation of character" or "ingratitude," and "all defamatory words injurious in their nature."
Each of the following terms charged on one personally in writing or in print has been adjudged in one or more reported cases to be libelous and actionable, namely:
That he was a "villain"; "liar"; "rogue"; "rascal"; "swindler"; "drunkard"; "informer"; that he was the author or the publisher of a libel or slander; that he was a "libelous journalist"; "a hypocrite, and using the cloak of religion for unworthy purposes"; "an imp of the devil"; "a miserable fellow it is impossible for a newspaper article to injure to the extent of six cents"; and "that the community can hardly despise him worse than they do now"; that he had paid money to procure an appointment to an office; that he had received money for offices; that he had been "deprived of the ordinances of the church"; that he was "thought no more of than a horsethief and a counterfeiter"; that he had infringed a patent; that he had been guilty of falsehood; of "dishonesty"; or "moral obliquity"; of "smuggling"; of "blasphemy"; of "false swearing"; that he was "insane"; that he was "fit for a lunatic asylum and unsafe to go at large"; that he had been guilty of gross misconduct in insulting females, etc. Where quotation marks are used, they indicate the exact language used in the respective publications complained of on which the suit was brought.
OBJECTIONABLE PUBLISHED CHARGES
The following published charges have been held to be objectionable, namely: