Short answer
Libel generally involves written or otherwise recorded statements; slander generally involves spoken statements. Both are forms of defamation, so the central distinction is the statement’s form—not whether it is more insulting or more harmful. These are general labels within US defamation law, whose requirements vary by state. 1
On this page
At a glance
Scroll to compare all columns →
| Question | Libel | Slander |
|---|---|---|
| Usual form? | Written or otherwise recorded | Spoken |
| Legal category? | Defamation | Defamation |
| Does the label establish liability? | No | No |
| Is this a universal media-classification rule? | No; the source says generally | No; the source says generally |
Cornell supplies the general definitions; the court opinion illustrates why identifying the category does not settle a claim. 1 2
What each thing is
Defamation concerns statements that harm another person’s reputation. Libel and slander are two branches of that category, not unrelated wrongs. Cornell’s definition of libel includes recorded statements as well as writing, while its definition of slander centers on speech. That wording makes the distinction broader than ink on paper versus a person’s voice. 1
Key differences
The primary difference is how the statement is expressed. The supplied federal bankruptcy court opinion uses written versus oral as its organizing distinction. Cornell adds otherwise recorded statements to the libel side. Neither excerpt supplies a separate comparison of proof requirements or damages for the two labels, so those differences cannot be reliably generalized here. 1 2
How to tell them apart
Start by asking how the allegedly defamatory statement was communicated: as writing or another recording, or as speech? Writing points toward libel; an unrecorded spoken statement points toward slander. Treat this as an initial classification, not a liability test. Cornell expressly uses general language and notes that state-law elements and defenses vary. 1
Where they overlap
Both labels belong to defamation law and concern reputational harm. Both also sit within a legal framework that must account for freedom of speech and the press. Calling a statement libel rather than slander does not move it outside that broader framework or eliminate questions about defenses and privileges. 1
Edge cases
A recorded spoken accusation exposes the limit of the written/oral shortcut: it is speech, but it is also recorded. Cornell’s description includes recordings under libel generally. The excerpts do not resolve particular audio, video, or broadcast formats, so they support recognizing the complication—not declaring that every recording has one legally controlling label. 1
Why the distinction exists
The distinction gives separate names to forms of communication within one broader legal category. In the supplied court opinion, written versus oral organizes the terminology, but a privilege defense makes deciding the adequacy of either claim unnecessary. The label can therefore help describe a dispute without determining its outcome. 2
Common misconceptions
Libel does not simply mean a false statement, with slander meaning a worse one: the supplied distinction concerns form. Nor does an allegedly defamatory statement necessarily produce liability. In the supplied opinion applying New York law, the court treated the defendants’ litigation-related statements as absolutely privileged rather than deciding whether libel or slander was adequately pleaded. 1 2
Examples
Hypothetically, someone writes a reputationally harmful accusation in a letter: its written form points toward libel. Someone instead makes the same accusation aloud in an unrecorded conversation: its spoken form points toward slander. These examples apply the general terminology only; neither establishes that the accusation meets the applicable state’s requirements for actionable defamation. 1