Professional Documents
Culture Documents
shtml
This is a list of states which recognize "defamation per se", or if you want to stretch
legalese a bit, are "defamation per se states." (It's not correct to say that a state which
doesn't "is a defamation per quod state.") There are states which recognize defamation
per se, and six which do not make a distinction.
There is a deeper description below the list of states, which explains the historic
distinction between defamation per se and per quod, and why it matters (or used to
matter). It also provides the common law categories that current slander law is based
on.
Generally, per se indicates that a statement is defamatory on its face (from Latin, "for
itself" or "of itself"). For example, a former employer wrongly tells someone that you
extorted money from the company.
Defamation per quod depends on context and the interpretation of the listener. It
means that a person would have to have what's called extrinsic knowledge to
understand the statement as defamatory. For example, a former employer wrongly
says he saw you drinking whiskey in a bar, a statement that could be problematic if
the person the employer is talking to knows you were court-ordered last year to stay
sober.
Under common law, slander traditionally was actionable per se if it fell into one of
four categories:
The distinction between defamation per se and per quod used to be relevant mainly
when it came to pleading for damages. Historically, someone who was judged the
victim of slander per se would not have to prove that it had resulted in "special harm"
– that is, the loss of something with an economic value – while someone who was the
object of slander per quod would have to prove specific harm. But times were simpler.
Claim that a 1870's cattle rancher had not paid you, and you could destroy his credit
rating forever – in such a situation it wouldn't matter much whether it had been
slander per se or slander per quod.
Courts in most states still technically distinguish between defamation per se and
defamation per quod. However, the effect of the distinction has been hugely diluted
by federal rulings (such as the landmark libel case Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.) that
have declared that damages "may not be presumed" – a way of saying, "mebbe yes,
mebbe no."
Even in the states where the per se distinction continues to be a factor, it isn't a
guarantee of big awards. If you can't show you were damaged by a statement that was
defamatory per se, it's possible a trial could result in a finding for you – but only $1 or
some other token amount in damages.
It's important to understand that lawyers and judges can't always make a clear
distinction either. "This ostensibly simple classification system," writes Rodney
Smolla, dean of the University of Richmond School of Law, "has gone through so
many bizarre twists and turns over the last two centuries that the entire area is now a
baffling maze of terms with double meanings, variations upon variations, and multiple
lines of precedent."
###
For a more complete description of lawsuits that do win monetary damages – such as
"financial harms" or "emotional distress" – please see our report Fighting Slander,
sold with a full money-back guarantee.