They can.
However, they must meet a different standard of proof to prevail.
The difference between slander and libel is that slander is the spoken word, whereas libel is a written word i.e. newspaper, anything in the public domain. libel can be a criminal offense as well as civil rights to civil liability while slander is a mere civil offense. libel is permanent in form while slander is temporary in form. in slander damages must be proved
Because public figures benefit financially from being in the public eye. Publicity GENERALLY is useful and profitable to them. No rational adult expects everything reported about a celebrity to be true. Some innacuracy and hyperboly is tolerated in the high volume of material about them.. So falsehoods about a celebrity are tolerated to a degree not tolerated by non-celebrities.
Libel and slander are not allowed to be used in any public setting. The use of these tactics could, in fact, land you in a deposition.
Probably. Most public figures do.Probably. Most public figures do.
Why it is not a good idea to collect data by asking the public
No. Satire is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court decision on Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46 (1988) was unanimous is saying that the First Amendment prohibits monetary awards to public figures to compensate for emotional distress. This is because satire is exaggerated so that reasonable people will recognize that is has no basis in fact.
A person who damages public property is typically referred to as a vandal or a perpetrator of vandalism. Vandalism involves intentionally destroying or defacing public property without permission.
James Overton has written: 'To the public' -- subject(s): Libel and slander
Pablo A. Ladizesky has written: 'Presupuesto participativo' -- subject(s): Budget process, Citizen participation, Finance, Public, Political participation, Politics and government, Public Finance
Yes, they can be sued, but the suit will not be successful. (In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. The question is not whether they can sue, but whether they can win. The type of lawsuit you are asking about is a libel or slander suit (oral or written). In order to prove this kind of suit, the plaintiff (here the celebrity) must assert that the defendant said something that is false about the plaintiff, and that the allegations led to damages for the plaintiff. Further, public figures, such as celebrities and politicians must also prove that the allegations were made with malice. A celebrity would not be able to prove that they suffered actual damages from being called ugly. However, there are successful libel/slander lawsuits. For example, if I told your employer that I caught you in bed with my 5 year old daughter, they believed it, and fired you as a result, you would be able to win this type of lawsuit.
slander.
Well that depends on what you are suing for? If she has caused physical damages to your property or to you then yes. Emotional distress, no sorry but as far as the court is concerned you kinda walked into that one and are there for equally responsible. For publicizing the affair, not unless you had a lawyer draw up an order of silence agreement prior to the affair and they signed it. In other words if the affair were made public and that caused you distress in any case you cannot sue her for damages. Now in cases of slander where she has said things publicly (not in private trust), that are not true about you, you may have cause for suit but be aware in such cases you will have to prove monetary damages caused by such and this can be extremely difficult. The court won't allow for award because you are mad and as I said before emotional distress isn't arguable under such circumstances and if the slander was made in what was believed to be in private trust by the defendant this would not be considered true slander which must be deliberate.