Defamation: Virginia vs. Maryland

Virginia follows the common law principles of defamation but has established statutory and case law parameters that guide the application of these principles. The state recognizes both written (libel) and spoken (slander) defamation, and Virginia law mandates that a plaintiff must prove five elements: proof that the statement was made, that it was false, that it was not protected by privilege, that it caused harm, and that it was made with the requisite degree of fault, which varies based on the plaintiff’s public or private status. Virginia courts lean towards a strict standard of proof, requiring clear and convincing evidence for claims made by public figures, while private individuals may need to show only negligence.

Maryland also adheres to the common law approach to defamation with some distinguishing features. Similar to Virginia, Maryland requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that the statement was published, that it was false, and that it caused harm. However, Maryland requires a slightly different proof structure regarding the standard of fault. For public figures, Maryland law requires that the plaintiff prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, while private individuals must only demonstrate negligence. Maryland law also permits certain defenses, including truth and opinion, and has its own distinct case law that shapes the interpretation of what constitutes defamation.