SNIP:
There's two kinds of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is written (and
now also covers the electronic media) while slander is oral. In either
case, for a plaintiff to recover they must prove that the defendant made
false statements that damaged the plaintiff's reputation by holding them up
to ridicule, shame, contempt, disgrace, etc. Truth is an absolute defense
to a charge of libel or slander.

The defendant is liable even if they, in good faith, believed the statements
to be true.

The plaintiff may plead and prove actual damages and may also claim punative
damages. The amount of actual damages are dependant upon the harm actually
suffered. Punative damages are designed to punish a defendant and may
greatly exceed the actual harm inflicted.

If the plaintiff is a public figure, then they must prove, in addition to
the above, that the defendant knew the charges were false or acted with a
willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for their truth.

In slandering a public figure, being wrong and hurting someone is just not
enough. The target must prove you intended to cause her emotional pain.
Most slander lawsuits die here. The defense of "we made a mistake" and
"we were sloppy" works.

There is no requirement that the defendant want to hurt someone (although
pretty common), only that they made false statements. If a public figure is
involved, the "we screwed up" defense might work, but it might not. It will
depend on the facts of the case.
SNIP:

I guess I'm old-fashioned but where I was raised (Alaska) and when
(some time ago) if you gratuitously bad-mouthed anyone you had better
be ready to back up your words, because the law per se didn't mess
with such things then. OTH if someone was a genuine bad case they were
put on the next boat back to the States. BTW, FWIW my grandad was
chief of police.
Walt BJ