> 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?

I can answer both of these: One of the biggest concerns of libel for the media is simply poor reporting. In general, making (or reporting) false, damaging statements is libellous regardless of whether or not the person making the claim knew they were true or not. Which makes sense -- otherwise you could go, "Dave killed three people," and then later say, "Well, he might have. I didn't know for sure either way."

In general, though, if you can prove you made a valiant attempt to seek the truth you're more or less off the hook. With public officials generally malice must be shown to win a libel suit, but when dealing with private individuals simply failing to verify facts before stating them is enough. (A few states require malice for private individuals; the Associated Press Stylebook & Libel Manual lists Alaska, Colorado, Indiana and New Jersey.) There are also several sources of information that are protected, such as court proceedings and things that happen in legislative bodies. I.e. I can give a fair and accurate report of accusations made by a witness in a trial, even if the witness is lying.

As every libel manual and text I've seen on the issue is quick to point out, there is really only one defense for libel or slander: that your statement is provably true.

Stephen