Slander, libel and defamation charges get thrown around a lot in the media, but many people don’t know precisely what they mean.
In today’s blog post, I’d like to take a moment to discuss how these legal terms fit together before examining how they are applied in a case. Specifically, we’ll examine how slander charges played out in a recent case involving television host Nancy Grace and Michael Shakel, nephew to Robert Kennedy.
Defamation
Defamation is a tort that serves as an umbrella term, so it includes both libel and slander. Any statement, written or oral, that injures a third party’s reputation is considered to be defamation.
By Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Establishing defamation generally requires four elements:
A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity.
Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.
Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence.
Harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Libel
Libel is the name for defamation that happens in embodied physical forms. This includes print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies or any other non-verbal communication. There are a few variants between libel and slander that bear noting.
First, recovery of damages may be awarded without proof of actual harm. This is because the courts view the fact of the publication to be harm in and of itself. However, inNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court ruled that, in the case of public figures or matters of public concern, proof of actual malice is required for an award of damages. It ruled this way because it reasoned that the goal of promoting speech on matters of public interest is more valuable than compensating individuals for damage to their reputations.
Slander
Slander refers to defamation made orally. While damages from libel are presumed because of the fact of publication, damages from slander must be proven by the plaintiff. Logically, this makes sense: It would be extremely difficult to prosecute every single person who says untruths about any other person. Only people who have been materially hurt are eligible for compensation.
The case against Grace
Nancy Grace is a legal commentator, television host and former prosecutor. She advocates for victims’ rights and her show is a ratings success, but critics argue that she is too quick to throw out due assumption of innocence.
Michael Shakel is a nephew of Robert Kennedy and a suspect in the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley. He was convicted of the crime and spent 11 years in prison, but was freed in 2013 for a retrial.
In her discussion of the case with legal commentator Beth Karas, Grace stated that Shakel had masturbated in a tree looking into Moxley’s window, and that his DNA was found in the tree as a result. In fact, there was no discussion in the 2002 trial of DNA evidence.
Shakel sued Grace, Karas and Time Warner Inc. claiming that the comments had hurt his chances for a fair retrial and his reputation. This is the established harm, necessary for a charge of slander – because the defamation was spoken.
The defendants attempted to have the case dismissed on the argument that the statements were “substantially true” if not verifiable, but Judge Vanessa Bryant ruled that a lawsuit was warranted.
In a trial, Shakel would have had to demonstrate proof of harm. Instead, the defendants settled, including a statement on Grace’s website stating the untruth of her statements, the removal of any reference to the offending comments and undisclosed monetary terms.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Nancy Grace Under Fire With Defamation & Slander Lawsuit
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Slander, libel and defamation charges get thrown around a lot in the media, but many people don’t know precisely what they mean.
In today’s blog post, I’d like to take a moment to discuss how these legal terms fit together before examining how they are applied in a case. Specifically, we’ll examine how slander charges played out in a recent case involving television host Nancy Grace and Michael Shakel, nephew to Robert Kennedy.
Defamation
Defamation is a tort that serves as an umbrella term, so it includes both libel and slander. Any statement, written or oral, that injures a third party’s reputation is considered to be defamation.
By Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Establishing defamation generally requires four elements:
A false statement purporting to be fact concerning another person or entity.
Publication or communication of that statement to a third person.
Fault on the part of the person making the statement amounting to intent or at least negligence.
Harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Libel
Libel is the name for defamation that happens in embodied physical forms. This includes print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies or any other non-verbal communication. There are a few variants between libel and slander that bear noting.
First, recovery of damages may be awarded without proof of actual harm. This is because the courts view the fact of the publication to be harm in and of itself. However, inNew York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court ruled that, in the case of public figures or matters of public concern, proof of actual malice is required for an award of damages. It ruled this way because it reasoned that the goal of promoting speech on matters of public interest is more valuable than compensating individuals for damage to their reputations.
Slander
Slander refers to defamation made orally. While damages from libel are presumed because of the fact of publication, damages from slander must be proven by the plaintiff. Logically, this makes sense: It would be extremely difficult to prosecute every single person who says untruths about any other person. Only people who have been materially hurt are eligible for compensation.
The case against Grace
Nancy Grace is a legal commentator, television host and former prosecutor. She advocates for victims’ rights and her show is a ratings success, but critics argue that she is too quick to throw out due assumption of innocence.
Michael Shakel is a nephew of Robert Kennedy and a suspect in the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley. He was convicted of the crime and spent 11 years in prison, but was freed in 2013 for a retrial.
In her discussion of the case with legal commentator Beth Karas, Grace stated that Shakel had masturbated in a tree looking into Moxley’s window, and that his DNA was found in the tree as a result. In fact, there was no discussion in the 2002 trial of DNA evidence.
Shakel sued Grace, Karas and Time Warner Inc. claiming that the comments had hurt his chances for a fair retrial and his reputation. This is the established harm, necessary for a charge of slander – because the defamation was spoken.
The defendants attempted to have the case dismissed on the argument that the statements were “substantially true” if not verifiable, but Judge Vanessa Bryant ruled that a lawsuit was warranted.
In a trial, Shakel would have had to demonstrate proof of harm. Instead, the defendants settled, including a statement on Grace’s website stating the untruth of her statements, the removal of any reference to the offending comments and undisclosed monetary terms.
