Can I Get a Libel or Slander Case Dismissed on the basis of “Innocent Meaning?”

In the past month, two prospective clients asked me whether, in California defamation cases, the defense of innocence will defeat a libel claim. In the late 1950s, this defense was reviewed and rejected by the California Supreme Court. Using reasoning still current today, the high court said the defendant is liable for what is insinuated, and what is explicitly stated.

“The fact that an implied defamatory charge or insinuation leaves room for an innocent interpretation as well [as a defamatory one] does not establish that the defamatory meaning does not appear from the language itself. The language used may give rise to conflicting inferences as to the meaning intended, but when it is addressed to the public at large, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the readers will take it in its defamatory sense.”

The court added that “hair-splitting” analysis of language to find an innocent meaning “…has no place in the law of defamation, dealing as [defamation] does with the impact of communication between ordinary human beings.”

The law no longer parses defamatory statements for possible innocent meanings. The same is true when the explicit language is innocent, but reasonable people could infer a defamatory meaning. A defendant can try to prove he was not at fault when making the supposedly defamatory statement. But proving innocence is rare and difficult because the person making the allegedly defamatory statement is responsible for any defamatory meaning, express or implied, reasonably conveyed by the statement, even if unintentional.