What are the two types of defamation?
154237
"Character" defamation is definitely one of them.  Maybe "professional" is the other?
1073723
media. it can rise a person's good name n vice versa. the truth can look like a lie n vice versa. the good seems bad n the bad seem good. n so many things...
1124254
Most speech on the Internet is considered free speach.  I have included a link below that will help.  If there is defamation from that speech, then you can sue for damages, but you must have suffered a monitary loss and there must be proof that a certain person was out to harm you with this speech.
328930
Don't name names, but I would run an ad in the local paper stating that a woman is bent on destroying my reputation, and ask the readers to ask your side before they believe her.  This will tell the people you must be telling the truth, and she is not going to want to take it this far and should back off. I know it sounds a little out there, but if she is a trouble maker, sometimes publicity is the only way to shut them up, and you don't have to mention names to make her face beet red. You want to put your name of course, and they will know who you are talking about without you getting a lawsuit.
867236
Verbicide?\nVerbal Flagellation?\nLabel Libel?\n\nWhy do you find your examples indicative of self-derision?  They are "ists"; is this what you find derisive?  \n\nPerhaps the answer you seek is "self-deprecation".
470427
Tell those people you are going to sue them for libel and defamation of character. Contact an attorney.
555731
By 'wrongfully named' do you mean that someone else probably did those things, but they sent the papers to you by mistake?\n\nOr do you mean that you don't agree that what you did was actually those things?\n\nIn either situation, if you have been served, you should get a lawyer to file a response. Failure to respond can be grounds for default.\n\nIf you don't think you are the correct person being named, because someone else did the actions being identified, then have your lawyer tell that to the court. Odds are, if you are correct and you really weren't involved, the court will allow you to prove that fairly easily.\n\nCounter-suing (a cross-complaint is only between two defendants) if you are not actually involved will only drag out the legal action, and cost you lots of money. Further, ask your lawyer about the concept of judicial immunity and litigation privilege with regard to defamation. Basically, most states do not allow the person being sued to file defamation based only on the suit. The exception is called abuse of process, if the defendant first wins the suit on the merits and then is able to prove that the plaintiff filed the suit in bad faith, knowing that the accusation wasn't valid. Either way, its long expensive legal battle.\n\nIf you were actually involved, but disagree with how the situation and your actions are being characterized, then also prepare yourself for a long drawn out legal battle. Or offer to settle.
385584
deception, dishonesty, double-cross, double-dealing, duplicity, falseness, giveaway, Judas kiss, letdown, perfidy, sell-out, sellout, treachery, treason, trickery, unfaithfulness
127877
Freedom of speech also grants you the right to insult as sad as that may be to some who do not understand those freedoms.  You can not lie about a person speaking, or in written form (slander or libel), in a fashion that will actually cost that person economically due to loss of revenue or actual losses.  Then you may be taken to court and have a judgement placed against you  and have to pay damages to the injured party.  The problem with this comes from different cultures and what one considers freedom of speech the other considers outright insult.  Which has happened and people are being killed over it in protests and most of the people being killed are the ones protesting about being insulted.  This make no sense from either culture and we should all pray for peace and understanding between our people's.
546495
reported for abuse:\n\nspam
383558
Slander involves malicious intent also, which is the toughest part to prove.  If you made a mistake, act stupid, and all of that, it won't hold up in court.  If you're talking to them directly, that's also not slander.
22892
"Slander" is fined as "A defamatory assertion expressed in a transitory form, esp. speech. - Damages for slander - unlike those for libel - are not presumed and thus must be proved by the plaintiff."  Slander is a part of the tort of defamation, defined as "the act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. - If the alleged defamation involves a matter of punlic concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statement's falsity and the defendant's fault."\n\nUnder the Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the tort of defamation has a First Amendment definition.  For matters of public concern that defame public officials, the statements are unprotected if they are known to be false or are recklessly made with regard to their falsity, called "actual malice."  For matters of public concern that defame private citizens, the statements are unprotected if made negligently under a case called Gertz.  On matters of private concern, they may be unprotected regardless, through a consideration of the whole record.\n\nAs a Washington Appellate Division just reaffirmed this year, "A defamation plaintiff must establish four essential elements: (1) falsity; (2) an unprivileged communication; (3) fault; and (4) damages."
1099494
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.\n\nThis is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution. One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.\n\nIn the United States, about 75 percent of defamation lawsuits are filed in state courts, and the remaining 25 percent in federal courts. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because each state's definition differs. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.\n\nMost defendants in libel lawsuits are newspapers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.\n\nIn the various states, whether by case law or actual legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. In addition, it is generally accepted in the United States that a sufficiently public figure is "fair game" for all but the grossest libels.\n\nDefences to claims of defamation include:\n\n    * Truth is an absolute defence in the United States because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In some other countries, such as Canada, it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.\n    * Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.\n    * Privilege is a defence when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.\n    * Opinion is a defence is recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the person makes a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and allow any statements suggesting a factual basis to support a defamation claim.\n    * Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.\n    * Consent is an
1162851
there are two kinds...\n\nonly two kinds...\n\nLiars and damned liars.
552166
Generally (see above on the value of specific legal advice), groups have the same legal expression (free speech) rights and liabilities as individuals. This includes religious organizations and other expressive associations.\n\nIf a religious (or other) organization says/does something that would be defamatory, then they would likely be just as liable for libel (or slander) as if an individual had done it.\n\nCaveat: some states may grant special protections to certain organizations, and I don't know whether Colorado is one of them. To be sure, consult with a Colorado attorney.
679589
It's possible you could take her to court for slander, and also libel if she's written down police reports about your (apparent) behaviour.  Contact a local legal-aid clinic and ask about taking her to court.
180089
Here's a list for you:\n\nAdult content\nAdvertisement\nCopyright\nImpersonation\nIncites Violence or Hatred\nInvasion of Privacy\nMinors or Exploitation of Minors\nMiscategorized\nNot in English/Not Comprehensible\nObscene or Profane Content\nPrivate Correspondence or Chatting\nSolicitation or Personal Ads\nSpam, Phishing, or Fraud\nThreat of Harm or Harassment\nOther (anything else that you think is abuse)\n\nHere is a link that is useful:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/info/community_guidelines.php