Are you curious about Arizona defamation law? Are you researching the topic and bumping into legal terms that make you go, “huh!?” If so, we’re here to lend a helping hand.

Below, we’ve outlined common terms one might come across when reading up on Arizona defamation law. We hope you find it helpful.

Has someone disparaged you? Lie about you? If you want to fight back and protect your good name, get in touch. We can help!

Actual Malice: Actual malice is the standard of proof that public figures must satisfy to win an Arizona defamation lawsuit. It means that the defendant knowingly published, wrote or spoke a false statement of fact. Reckless disregard for the truth counts as “actual malice” in some cases.

Slander: Slander is spoken or transitory defamation. If a radio or TV announcer says something defamatory on-air or in a video, it’s slander.

Libel: Libel is written defamation. Both online and printed statements fall under the libel category. Whether a defamatory statement is published on social media, Kris’s Ketchup Blog or in New York Times, it’s libel.

Defamation Per Se: Some statements believed to be naturally harmful fall under the per se category. In defamation per se claims, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove actual reputational injury because the harm is presumed. For example, calling someone a criminal is considered defamatory per se in several states because there are obvious drawbacks associated with being labeled a felon.

Defamation Per Quod: Per quod defamation is the opposite of per se defamation. In a per quod case, the claimant must prove damages because they may not be apparent to the average person.

Single-Publication Rule: Jurisdictions differ on how many counts of defamation can be brought in cases involving multiple publications. In areas that adhere to the single-publication rule “any form of mass communication or aggregate publication . . . is a single communication and can give rise to only one action for libel.”