Guide to Nevada Defamation Law – Libel and Slander

Discovering that someone has spread false information about you can be a deeply distressing experience, triggering feelings of betrayal, anger, and helplessness. Defamatory statements can cause serious damage to your personal and professional reputation, affecting your relationships, career opportunities, and emotional well-being. If you’re facing this difficult situation, it’s important to know that Nevada law provides specific legal remedies to help you combat false statements and begin the process of restoring your reputation and dignity.

Nevada defamation law defines defamation as a false statement that would “tend to lower the subject in the estimation of the community and to excite derogatory opinions against him and to hold him up to contempt.” Under Nevada law, defamation is categorized as either libel (written defamation) or slander (spoken defamation), with plaintiffs required to prove the statement was false and defamatory, unprivileged and published to a third party, made with at least negligence, and either actionable regardless of special harm or caused special harm to the plaintiff. Nevada maintains specific protections for both private and public figures seeking defamation remedies, with different standards of proof required depending on the plaintiff’s status and the nature of the defamatory statement.

What is Defamation Under Nevada Law?

Under Nevada law, defamation is defined as a false statement that would “tend to lower the subject in the estimation of the community and to excite derogatory opinions against him and to hold him up to contempt.” Nevada recognizes defamation as including both libel and slander, with each form having distinct characteristics but sharing the same fundamental elements.

Nevada recognizes two forms of defamation:

1. Libel: Written defamation or defamation published in a tangible medium, including statements published in newspapers, magazines, books, online articles, social media posts, emails, or text messages. Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) § 200.510 defines libel as “a malicious defamation, expressed by printing, writing, signs, pictures or the like, tending to blacken the memory of the dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation, or to publish the natural defects of a living person or persons, or community of persons, or association of persons, and thereby to expose them to public hatred, contempt or ridicule.”
2. Slander: Spoken defamation or defamation expressed orally, including verbal statements made in conversations, speeches, broadcasts, or other oral communications.

To establish a claim for defamation in Nevada, the plaintiff must prove four essential elements:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff
2. An unprivileged publication to a third party
3. Fault amounting to at least negligence on the part of the publisher
4. Either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm, or the existence of special harm caused by the publication

It’s important to note that publication to anyone other than the person being defamed, even to their agents, satisfies the publication element when making the prima facie case for defamation in Nevada. Additionally, communication to one spouse of a matter that would be defamatory to the other spouse constitutes a publication under Nevada law.

What Are Elements of a Defamation Claim in Nevada?

To establish a valid defamation claim in Nevada, plaintiffs must prove several specific elements. Each of these components is essential to building a successful case and obtaining legal remedies for damage to one’s reputation.

False and Defamatory Statement Concerning the Plaintiff

The first element requires that the statement in question must be false and defamatory. For a statement to be defamatory in Nevada, it must be false, and the plaintiff will bear the burden of proving that the statement is false. The statement must also be “of and concerning” the plaintiff, meaning it must be reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff specifically.

A statement is considered defamatory if it would tend to lower the subject in the estimation of the community and excite derogatory opinions against them. The statement must be factual in nature, not merely an opinion, as opinions generally cannot be defamatory under Nevada law unless they imply a false assertion that would be defamatory.

Unprivileged Publication to a Third Party

The defamatory statement must be communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff. In Nevada, “publication” occurs when the defendant communicates the statement to a third party who understands its defamatory meaning. This can include verbal statements to another person, posts on social media, or articles in newspapers or online publications.

The publication must also be “unprivileged,” meaning any legal privilege does not protect it. Nevada recognizes various privileges that can protect certain communications from defamation claims, which will be discussed in more detail in the defenses section.

Fault Amounting to at Least Negligence

The plaintiff must prove the defendant was at fault in making the defamatory statement. For private individuals, Nevada requires proof of negligence, which means that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in determining whether the statement was true before publishing it.

For public figures or matters of public concern, the plaintiff must prove “actual malice”—that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. In Nevada, “actual malice is the state of mind arising from hatred or ill will toward the plaintiff and does not include that state of mind occasioned by a good faith belief in the truth of the publication or broadcast.” Nevada courts have interpreted “reckless disregard” as being applied to the truth of the matter, specifically as a “high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of the statement.”

Actionability or Special Harm

The plaintiff must demonstrate either that the statement is actionable regardless of special harm (defamation per se) or that they suffered special harm as a result of the statement (defamation per quod).

In Nevada, statements are considered defamation per se if they fall into one of the following categories:

• Imputations that the plaintiff has committed a crime
• Imputations that would injure the plaintiff in their trade, business, or office
• Imputations that the plaintiff has contracted a loathsome disease
• Imputations of unchastity in a woman or sexual misconduct by either gender

For statements that do not constitute defamation per se, the plaintiff must prove special damages—specific economic or pecuniary losses that resulted directly from the defamatory statement.

What Are the Standards For Private vs. Public Figures in Nevada?

Nevada law applies different standards of proof in defamation cases depending on whether the plaintiff is considered a private individual or a public figure. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for both plaintiffs and defendants in defamation litigation.

Private Figures

In Nevada, private individuals have greater protection under defamation law and face a lower burden of proof. To succeed in a defamation claim, a private figure must prove:

1. The defendant made a false statement about them
2. The statement was published to a third party
3. The defendant was at least negligent in making the statement (failed to exercise reasonable care in verifying its accuracy)
4. The statement caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation

Under Nevada defamation law, plaintiffs must prove a defendant acted negligently in publishing falsities about them. This standard recognizes that private individuals have not voluntarily placed themselves in the public spotlight and have fewer resources to counter false statements.

Public Figures

Public figures in Nevada face a higher burden of proof in defamation cases. They must prove all the elements required for private figures, plus demonstrate that the defendant acted with “actual malice”—meaning the defendant:

1. Knew the statement was false, or
2. Acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false

Nevada follows the standard set forth in the landmark case Gertz v. Robert Welch, which expands on the traditional notion of public figures by breaking them down into two categories:

• General Purpose Public Figures: Individuals who “achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that [they become] a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts.” These are typically celebrities, high-ranking government officials, and other widely recognized individuals.
• Limited-Purpose Public Figures: Individuals who are public figures in only part of their life, so they are only public figures as it pertains to areas of their life that they are well known for. For example, Nevada courts have held that restaurants may be considered public figures for the limited purpose of restaurant reviews, as they open themselves up to the public by being a public accommodation.

The heightened standard for public figures stems from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan and has been consistently applied by Nevada courts to balance free speech interests with reputation protection.

What Are Common Defenses to Defamation in Nevada?

Defendants in Nevada defamation cases have several potential defenses available to them. Understanding these defenses is important for both plaintiffs considering litigation and defendants responding to defamation claims.

Truth

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation in Nevada. For a statement to be defamatory, it must be false, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the statement is false. If the defendant can prove that the allegedly defamatory statement is substantially true, the plaintiff’s claim will fail regardless of the defendant’s motives or the harm caused.

“Substantial truth” means that the gist or crux of the statement is true, even if there are minor inaccuracies concerning immaterial facts. If the essential meaning of the statement is understood to be true, then a defamation defendant likely won’t be held liable.

Opinion

Under Nevada defamation law, opinions generally cannot be defamatory. Whether a statement is an opinion is determined by “whether a reasonable person would be likely to understand the remark as an expression of the source’s opinion or as a statement of existing fact.”

However, the Nevada Supreme Court has followed Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. in holding that opinions can be defamatory if they imply a false assertion that would be defamatory. For example, in one case, when school officials said, “when it comes out in the open,” that was determined to be enough to imply that a coach had inappropriate contact with the girls on the volleyball team.

Nevada courts recognize different types of opinions:

• Evaluative Opinions: Statements making a value judgment or statement about what is right and wrong. For example, a statement that an animal tamer’s actions were cruel was considered an evaluative opinion, as was a restaurant reviewer’s statement that food did not taste fresh.
• Mixed Opinions: Opinions that suggest or imply that the speaker knows undisclosed facts, which can be sufficient to make a statement defamatory.

Privilege

Nevada recognizes several types of privilege that can protect statements from defamation claims:

Absolute Privilege

Under Nevada law, absolute privilege protects false statements even when they are made with actual malice. This privilege applies to:

• Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings, as long as they are relevant
• Statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings
• Statements made by lawyers contemplating judicial proceedings
• Statements made in naturalization proceedings

For absolute privilege to apply, the communications must be made pursuant to a lawful process and to a qualified person. The class of absolutely privileged communications in Nevada remains narrow and is limited to those communications made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and communications made in the discharge of a duty under express authority of law.

Qualified Privilege

In Nevada, qualified or conditional privilege exists “where a defamatory statement is made in good faith on any subject matter in which the person communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a right or a duty, if it is made to a person with a corresponding interest or duty.”

Examples of qualified privilege in Nevada include:

• Employers speaking to the character and abilities of a former employee to a prospective employer
• Statements made to police to begin an investigation
• Disclosure of information regarding a fraudulent insurance claim or suspicious fire
• Reports made to the state about child abuse investigations

Unlike absolute privilege, qualified privilege can be defeated if the plaintiff proves the defendant abused the privilege by acting with actual malice.

Statutory Privileges

Nevada has codified several privileges by statute, including:

• Absolute privilege for witnesses testifying in judicial proceedings or legislative hearings
• Privilege for insurance communications made pursuant to Nevada law
• Privilege for communications between employers and employees to the Employment Security Division
• Privilege for statements made in the course of official proceedings of the Gaming Control Board or Commission
• Constitutional privilege for truth given as evidence to a jury in criminal prosecutions and civil actions for libel
• Privilege for communications regarding attorney discipline hearings

Fair Report Privilege

Nevada recognizes the fair report privilege, which immunizes parties from liability for defamation if the information they publicize is a “fair report” of information available from an official (judicial or quasi-judicial) proceeding. This privilege is most commonly asserted by members of the media.

For the fair report privilege to apply, the proceeding in question must be open and available to the general public. Nevada courts apply a test to determine whether the privilege’s underlying purpose—encouraging the dissemination of fair and accurate reports—is served. The report must be written in such a manner that the average reader would understand it to be a report on or summary of an official document or proceeding.

Notably, Nevada courts have held that hyperlinks are equivalent to attribution in defamation law, as long as “an average person can identify and understand a hyperlink’s importance.”

Anti-SLAPP Protection

Nevada has robust Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) protection, which provides that “a person who engages in a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern is immune from any civil action for claims based upon the communication.”

Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP statute was significantly strengthened in 2013 and requires a two-step analysis: first, the defendant must demonstrate that the communication was protected, and if so demonstrated, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on their claims.

Statute of Limitations

In Nevada, causes of action for defamation must be brought within two years of the date that the allegedly defamatory material was first published. Nevada follows the single publication rule, which provides that the first time something is published, no matter how many copies are published thereafter, the day of publication is the first day the information is made available to the public. This rule applies to Internet publications as well.

What Damages Can Be Recovered for Defamation in Nevada?

When a plaintiff successfully proves defamation in Nevada, they may be entitled to various forms of compensation. The types and amounts of damages available depend on several factors, including the nature of the defamatory statement and its impact on the plaintiff.

Actual Damages

In Nevada, plaintiffs in defamation per se actions do not need to set out extra proof for special damages and instead receive general damages. General damages are the harms normally associated with defamation, such as damage to reputation, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.

Proof of defamation is considered proof of damages in Nevada, and juries are allowed to estimate the amount of damages without extra evidence. This means that once a plaintiff has successfully proven the elements of defamation per se, damages are presumed to flow from the defamatory statement.

Special Damages

In cases where the defamation was not per se in Nevada (defamation per quod), the plaintiff can receive special damages, which are damages that flow directly from the damage to reputation and not from the defamation itself. Special damages might include:

• Lost wages or income
• Lost business opportunities
• Medical expenses for treatment of emotional distress
• Other quantifiable economic losses

For defamation per quod claims, the plaintiff must specifically plead and prove these special damages to recover.

Punitive Damages

Under Nevada defamation law, punitive damages (also known as exemplary damages) can only be recovered under a statute. NRS § 42.005 lays out the general rules for punitive damages, while NRS § 42.001 provides necessary definitions.

To recover punitive damages in Nevada, the plaintiff must prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied.” These damages are awarded to punish the defendant for particularly egregious conduct and to deter similar behavior in the future.

There is a notable exception to punitive damages for an employer held liable for the wrongful actions of an employee—no punitive damages will result in respondeat superior cases, unless:

• The employer had advance knowledge that the employee was unfit for the purposes of the employment and employed the employee with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others
• The employer expressly authorized or ratified the wrongful act of the employee for which the damages are awarded
• The employer is personally guilty of oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied

What Is The Statute of Limitations for Nevada Defamation Claims?

Understanding the time constraints for filing a defamation lawsuit is crucial for protecting your legal rights. Nevada law establishes specific deadlines that must be strictly observed.

In Nevada, causes of action for defamation must be brought within two years of the date that the allegedly defamatory material was first published. This means that a plaintiff must file their lawsuit within two years of when the defamatory statement was first communicated to a third party.

Nevada follows the single publication rule, which provides that the first time something is published, no matter how many copies are published thereafter, the day of publication is the first day the information is made available to the public. This rule applies to Internet publications as well, as Nevada courts have held that “the scope of the single publication rule is not limited to print versions of newspapers and magazines. Courts considering the issue have uniformly held that the single publication rule applies to claims arising out of Internet publications.”

The single publication rule limits a plaintiff’s right to action and recovery to one publication. That means a defamation plaintiff may only bring one defamation action for a mass publication and may not subsequently keep bringing actions for every following publication or dissemination of the original libelous statement.

It’s important to note that determining exactly when the statute of limitations begins and ends can be complex, particularly for online defamation. Consulting with an experienced Nevada defamation attorney promptly after discovering potentially defamatory content is crucial to preserve your legal rights.

Frequently Asked Questions About Nevada Defamation Law

Below are answers to some of the most common questions about defamation law in Nevada. These insights can help you better understand your rights and options if you’re involved in a defamation matter.

Can You Press Charges Against Someone for Making False Accusations in Nevada?

Defamation in Nevada is primarily a civil matter, not a criminal offense, so you cannot “press charges” in the traditional sense. Many of Nevada’s criminal statutes for criminal libel and slander have been ruled unconstitutional. However, you can file a civil lawsuit seeking damages against someone who has made false accusations about you.

In a civil defamation lawsuit, you would need to prove the four elements of defamation: a false and defamatory statement concerning you, an unprivileged publication to a third party, fault amounting to at least negligence, and either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.

How Difficult is it to Win a Defamation Lawsuit in Nevada?

Winning a defamation lawsuit in Nevada can be challenging due to the need to prove all required elements: a false and defamatory statement, unprivileged publication to a third party, fault, and damages. The difficulty increases significantly for public figures who must prove actual malice. Success rates vary based on:

• The nature of the defamatory statement
• Available evidence of falsity
• The defendant’s level of fault
• Documented damages
• Whether the plaintiff is a public or private figure
• Applicable defenses

Nevada’s robust Anti-SLAPP statute can also make it more difficult to pursue defamation claims related to matters of public interest. Working with an experienced defamation attorney significantly improves your chances of success by helping you gather appropriate evidence and navigate complex legal standards.

Can Nevada Defamation Defendants Retract, Clarify, or Correct Previously Made Statements Prior to Litigation?

Yes, Nevada law provides for a correction process that can limit damages in defamation cases. In any action for damages for the publication of a libel in a newspaper, or of a slander by radio or television broadcast, the plaintiff may recover no more than special damages unless a correction is demanded by the plaintiff and not published or broadcast.

A demand for correction must be made in writing and served upon the newspaper or broadcaster at its place of business. The demand must specify the statements claimed to be libelous or slanderous and demand a correction. This demand must be served within 90 days after the plaintiff has knowledge of the publication or broadcast of the statements claimed to be libelous or slanderous.

If the correction is not published within 20 days, the plaintiff can receive general and special damages. The plaintiff can also recover exemplary (punitive) damages if they can prove actual malice. If a correction is published before it is demanded, it has the same effect as if it was published after the demand.

Does Nevada Have an Anti-SLAPP Statute?

Yes, Nevada has a robust Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute, which provides that “a person who engages in a good faith communication in furtherance of the right to petition or the right to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern is immune from any civil action for claims based upon the communication.”

Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP law was significantly strengthened in 2013 and applies to statements made in direct connection with an issue of public concern. The statute requires a two-step analysis: first, the defendant must demonstrate that the communication was protected, and if so demonstrated, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on their claims.

Nevada has adopted California’s “guiding principles” for determining what constitutes speech of public concern or public interest:

• “Public interest” does not equate with mere curiosity
• A matter of public interest should be something of concern to a substantial number of people
• There should be some degree of closeness between the challenged statements and the asserted public interest
• The focus of the speaker’s conduct should be the public interest rather than a mere effort to gather ammunition for another round of private controversy
• A person cannot turn otherwise private information into a matter of public interest simply by communicating it to a large number of people

Can Nevada Defamation Plaintiffs Sue Out-of-State Defamation Defendants?

Yes, Nevada courts can have personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defamation defendants under certain circumstances. A Nevada court may have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if “their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions were expressly aimed at the state where the plaintiff resides.”

Nevada courts use a sliding scale analysis for Internet cases, focusing on the level of interactivity a defendant employs through its website in doing business with a forum to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is appropriate. Operating a passive website (a website that is available to anyone to view but is not targeted anywhere in particular) does not subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction in Nevada.

The Nevada long-arm statute, NRS § 14.065, allows Nevada courts to hold jurisdiction over anyone as long as it is consistent with the constitutional standard. If you’re unclear whether Nevada courts have personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant who allegedly defamed you online, consulting with an experienced internet defamation attorney is recommended.

What Should I Look for in a Defamation Attorney?

When selecting a defamation attorney in Nevada, consider these key factors:

1. Experience with defamation cases: Look for an attorney with specific experience handling defamation claims in Nevada courts, not just general litigation experience.
2. Understanding of First Amendment issues: Defamation law intersects with constitutional free speech protections, so your attorney should have a strong grasp of these complex legal principles.
3. Digital expertise: For online defamation, seek an attorney familiar with internet platforms, content removal strategies, and digital evidence preservation.
4. Clear fee structure: Understand how the attorney charges (hourly rates, contingency fees, or hybrid arrangements) and what expenses you might incur.
5. Strategic approach: A good defamation attorney should offer multiple strategies, potentially including demand letters, negotiation, content removal, and litigation when necessary.
6. Communication style: Choose an attorney who explains complex legal concepts clearly and keeps you informed throughout the process.

Work With the Nevada Defamation Lawyers of Minc Law

When facing defamation issues in Nevada, having experienced legal representation can make a significant difference in protecting your reputation and securing appropriate remedies.

If you’re a resident of Nevada or any other U.S. state and have been the victim of malicious and defamatory online attacks, the defamation removal lawyers of Minc Law can help you protect your reputation and seek appropriate legal remedies. Our team has deep experience in defamation law and has successfully represented clients throughout Nevada in complex defamation matters.

We understand the nuances of Nevada defamation law and can help you navigate the legal process from initial consultation through resolution. Whether you need content removed from the internet, a strategic response to false statements, or representation in court, our attorneys provide personalized guidance tailored to your specific situation.

When working with Minc Law, you can expect:

• Courtesy and respect throughout the process, as we understand how invasive and overwhelming online defamation can be
• Open dialogue and communication, with frequent updates about your case
• Results-driven representation from attorneys who know how to work with website administrators, content managers, and third-party arbitration firms

Don’t let defamatory statements continue to damage your reputation. Contact Minc Law today to get your free case evaluation by calling 216-373-7706, or by filling out our contact form online.