> A statement must have a few other qualifications to be either libel or slander (slander is spoken, libel is printed -- it gets tricky with things like TV or radio, but my understanding is that this is usually libel). One of the important ones is that a statement must be damaging to the victim. If I tell my friend Bill that Dave thinks "The Golden Girls" is the funniest show ever (which I hope is an untrue statement), this isn't slander because Dave doesn't actually suffer.

Two questions about that. My understanding was that false, damaging statements are only considered libel or slander if the statements were known to be false by the speaker. That is, someone making damaging statements thought to be true is not guilty of libel or slander.

The other question I had -- and this I had no prior impression of one way or the other -- does intent to harm have to be shown for false, damaging statements to be considered libel or slander?