Why is slander a tort at common law?
colp
slander can be just as damaging as a physical injury.
Doug Brown
news:d12525f9-18c6-426e...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Why is slander a tort at common law? The injury resulting from a
> slander can be just as damaging as a physical injury.
And a claim for physical injury is also a tort at common law, apart from any
possible criminal sanctions the Crown/State may impose.
mm
wrote:
>Why is slander a tort at common law? The injury resulting from a
>slander can be just as damaging as a physical injury.
Well, injuring someone physically is also a tort at common law. So
there. :)
Or do you mean why is assault codified and slander isn't? I think in
most or all places they're the same and why does it make a difference?
Are you asking why is it only a tort, :) why it's not a crime?
Well I think maybe it is:
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=%22criminal+slander%22&btnG=Google+Search
And this page looks weird but it's on topic:
http://cyberlaw.info/Article102.htm
And this one:
http://law.onecle.com/texas/finance/89.101.00.html
And this is another from the google list:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20051019/ai_n15707298/
Seth
colp <co...@solder.ath.cx> wrote:
>Why is slander a tort at common law? The injury resulting from a
>slander can be just as damaging as a physical injury.
Causing a physical injury is likewise a tort, so I don't understand
your question.
Anyway, the answer to "why is <something> at common law?" is generally
"because it has always been that way, long enough (and starting early
enough) to become common law." As to why it was that way back then,
most likely it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Also, "can be" is much weaker than "is". I've been slandered hundreds
or thousands of times with less total damage than one person stepping
on my foot.
Seth
Mike Jacobs
> Why is slander a tort at common law? The injury resulting from a
> slander can be just as damaging as a physical injury.
Doesn't your own second sentence answer the question you raised in the
first one?
Unless you meant something else. Care to rephrase what you really
want to know, based on how much you already know, so we don't re-
invent the wheel trying to fill in the gaps in your knowledge?
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300