For example, you call someone a thief without knowing for sure if they are.  It turns out later that you were right.  Are you guilty of slander or defamation?  Have you have committed a moral/ethical error?
129494
If it proves to be true, assuming we're talking about a reasonably short time-frame here, then you're probably okay.  It also depends on "how" you say what you say.  The facts are one thing, but if you selected a hurtful way of conveying the message, it could be viewed as an unjustified verbal assault - and depending on the circumstances, that could be actionable.
175221
Only if you know the person well. Some people dont like that. Might lead to you being known as "The Wise Guy". So be careful about being critical. But there are nice ways of pointing the mistakes so that no one gets hurt.
265902
Because it's for the greater good - see the chafetz chaim. Slander is only a problem if the harm to the person you are slandering is pointless. If there is something to be achieved by the slander, then there is no philosophical problem. Otherwise society would fall apart.
45323
No... when someone calls in reference to their employment you can't "slander" them. But if they ask, would you rehire them you can say NO! Or if they ask if they were on time... if they weren't you can say no to that also.
384176
You know what you did in your life.. \nIf its fake..  then i would be taking them for slander as well. \nto me its a play to freak  you out. \n\nIf it was me.. i would make a personal point of letting her know she is a very cruel person and it will come back to her three fold.
556464
yep. some of there assumptions are right about me. which comes in handy when i need good "party and smoking" friends. but some are off the wall. i still have an appreciation for things and music that are beautiful and i have absolutely no morals. so, i don't know what they say or assume. i don't care, let them talk and get caught up. there's no way anyone could know everything about me in a five second glance, so i don't care. i value few people's opinions and even only sometimes.\n\nAND MAY I RESPOND ASSUMTIONS MAY BE OUR NATURE, BUT WE'RE NOT  CHILDREN SO WE SHOULD KNOW AND PUT INTO ACTION THAT IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK IT COULD BE A DOG ON A BAD DAY.
483337
When without misleading someone too much they are prevented from getting hurt by a lie. Sometimes though honesty is the best policy. It depends on the person/situation.
172884
No not slander specifically.  Slander involves someone who tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit.\n\nWhat your employer may have fired you for is malpractice (depending on what you do), or just simply for bad character, which they can fire you for (check with your employee handbook).\n\nI don't think you will be able to sue for wrongful termination.
77326
Usually a sexual offense.  Have you been arrested for taking advantage of people?
476798
perhaps the expression 'i may be a burglar...but i am an honest one' is implying that not all thiefs are liars. burglary and lying, although both considered moral wrongs, are not one and the same thing. \nI think the assumption that stealing is always wrong is a dangerous one to make. suppose you're a poor person living on the street. you've got no home, no job, no money and no food. would you still consider it wrong to steal a loaf of bread?it also depends on your definition of the word wrong. in a legal sense, yes, stealing is always wrong. in a moral sense, it could well be a different story. One must consider the context of the theft. Stealing to survive is very different to stealing for the sake of it.\n\nas for honour amongst thieves, i don't think it means that stealing is honourable. the word 'amongst' should not be forgotten. honour amongst thieves is a reference to the idea that although thieves generally have no scruples or moral boundaries, they do have their own set of rules when they're dealing with each other. Something like a pirate's code. They'll raid, pillage and plunder but in their dealings with other pirates, they have a code of conduct or a code of honour to which they hold themselves.
452561
get an attorny ask for a consultation.\n\nmost consultations are free.\n\nslander is hard stuff to work with.    in some cases you need a mediator and tons of proof.\n\nit takes a long time to prove slander.\n\nit must be a hard case and you must prove that the slander is defaming to you and is hurting you in some way professionally and it's hurting your personal life in some way that's damaging and may involve harrassment and other depremental issues.
402194
If you saying things like "I think that whatever is a crime" Turn them into statements like  "Whatever is a crime". You don't need the I think because that just makes it should like you unsure of yourself.
427729
Theoretically, yes.  The previous employer can say whatever they want when someone calls for a reference as long as it is true.  However, they open themselves up to lawsuits if they do even if it is true and verifiable.  The fired employee can claim defamation of character and the old employer will be forced to go to court to support the claims it made.  Even if they can prove the claims, it is still up to the jury to decide guilty or not guilty.  Sometimes, juries do not listen to facts.  In any event, the prior employer will lose money to defend itself.\n\nIt is usually safer for old employers to not disclose exactly what happened directly but use a little subterfuge.  Such as when the prospective employer calls about a reference say "I am going to have to refer you to our legal department regarding this previous employee."  That says there is something very bad here, but not exactly what.  It lets the prospective employer know that the prior employment had problems.  Sometimes just saying flat out "I not give a reference for this employee." will get the message across.
113957
Depends on your moral and ethical beliefs. Whether you believe it is stealing or whether you believe turning it in makes you a better person. It is all based on what kind of person are you.
114876
Anyone can sue, the question should be can the person be held for saying/writting it.  If it's true then you can't be for the simple reason it has to be false.  This is one of the reasons it's hard to sue since the person must show the statement is false, while the person defending only must show some reason that they believe it to be true.
160645
A customer in SC sued Pizza Hut for a racial slur that was printed on his receipt. You don't give any details, so I can't tell if your case would fall along similar lines, but it's certainly plausible, as long as actual defamation of character took place. Being abusive is not defamation.
35936
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?\nGenerally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper. \n\nTypically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:\n\nA false and defamatory statement concerning another; \nThe unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement); \nIf the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and \nDamage to the plaintiff. \nIn the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print. \n\nDamages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish. \n\nMost jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:\n\nAttacks on a person's professional character or standing; \nAllegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; \nAllegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; \nAllegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude; \nWhile actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.