Sportslaw Jargon: Defamation

According to Black's Law Dictionary, defamation is "an intentional false communication either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name". Traditionally, defamation was a simple tort (civil wrong) requiring that the statement was false and that it was harmful.It was composed of one of two types: libel (written defamation) and slander (oral defamation). In libel, the damages were presumed because of the "permanency of the writing." In most slander cases, specific damages had to be pleaded.

Today, the rules are more complex. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that defamation has some constitutional protection. Under the rationale of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court altered the standard to require an additional element of "malice" if the person claiming defamation is a "public figure." Malice is defined as a statement made with knowledge of its falsity or a "reckless disregard" for its truth. If the person is not a "public figure," then state law applies. A public figure is someone who has achieved fame or notoriety within the community.

Since most athletes, coaches and owners are public figures, the New York Times standard applies. Defamation has risen as a balance between Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Individual.Since professional athletes are not considered private citizens but rather "public figures", their actions including their private life may lawfully be the subject of public criticism. Applying this standard is often difficult for juries because of the concept of defining malice. Often jury awards are reversed on appeal because the jury did not properly apply the law.

The rise of sports talk radio has lead to more cases of defamation by athletes. Eric Lindros threatened to sue a Philadelphia station for remarks that accused him of "drinking in a public place the night before [a] game, had shown up with a hangover, and had been suspended for the game by the club." (click here for more information).

Defamation law runs counter to the old child's saying of "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you." Indeed words can be very harmful and those harmed need legal protection. But on the other hand, defamation cannot be used to restrict first amendment rights.