libel

(redirected from libels)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Idioms, Encyclopedia.
Related to libels: slander, defaming

libel

[lī′bəl]
Etymology: L, libellus, little book
a false accusation written, printed, or typewritten, or presented in a picture or a sign that is made with malicious intent to defame the reputation of a person who is living or the memory of a person who is dead, resulting in public embarrassment, contempt, ridicule, or hatred.

libel

(lī′bĕl) [L. libellus, little book, pamphlet]
Defaming the character of another by means of the written word. To qualify legally as libel, written communication must intentionally impugn the reputation of another person and be both malicious and demonstrably false.

libel (lī´bəl),

n 1. that which is written and published in order to injure the character of another by ridicule or contempt.
2. a defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or signs.
References in periodicals archive ?
2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony
b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.
The crime of defamatory libel has rarely been prosecuted in Canada, perhaps because libel is only tenuously (and mostly historically) a criminal matter.
Police and prosecutors, despite the crime remaining on the books, leave defamatory libel to be dealt with by the tort of defamation in civil court.
This rare charge of criminal libel was brought and prosecuted through the Supreme Court of Canada to protect the reputation of a police officer.
The juxtaposition of sodomy and Bedchamber politics as alternative explanations for rebellion in the poem can be read symptomatically, as evidence that Jove's "arse verse" love translates the perceived political disorder resulting from institutionalized access into sexual libel.
The best account of the range of libel attracted by Buckingham's preeminence is offered in Bellany, 1995, 440-677.
On the culture of manuscript news and libel see Bellany, 1993 and 1995; Cogswell, 20-53; Cust; and Fox.
In reality, the Net has always been subject to libel law (as well as other laws), and no reasonable person has ever supposed that he couldn't be sued for saying something libelous on the Internet.
For example, one of the reasons a newspaper can still be made to pay a libel defendant even when it has published a retraction is that the retraction (one may reasonably argue) never has quite the impact that the original defamation did - not even if it's printed on the front page, and not even if the falsity of the report is further publicized by the filing of a libel lawsuit.
If anything, a libel on the Web is more permanent in impact even though it is evanescent in form," University of Virginia law professor Robert O'Neil told New York Times reporter Carl Kaplan.
Operating in tandem, these factors have made the retraction a bigger story than the libel ever was - which in turn makes Blumenthal's lawsuit look a lot more like opportunistic overreaching and a lot less like justice in action.