It is hard to sue on the basis of slandering and defamation of character. I researched this once with the lawyers I know and they just laughed saying it would be hard to get a lawyer to take this because it is unlikely you could prove and collect any damages from that person(s).
Now if you can find a jw who did this successfully (and except for Moyle's case I doubt you will), it might be easier to litigate.
Defamation of character involves written or spoken harm to a person or organization's reputation. Defamation of character includes libel and slander. Libel is written defamation of character. Slander is spoken defamation of character.
Defamation of character is the general term used to describe both libel and slander under one umbrella. The best defense from being convicted of defamation of character is "truth" according to the courts.
The concept of truth is mutually exclusive to defaming one's character since "truth" and "character" go hand-in-hand. The second component of defamation of character, according to most courts and jurisdictions, is the idea of "malice" on the part of the alleged defamer.
If the alleged defamer spoke or wrote fallacy instead of fact, fiction and falsehood instead of commonly accepted evidence, then this in and of itself is not defaming without malice. Malice aforethought is a legal term usually used to convict someone of first-degree murder. It means someone had cognizant intent before committing a crime. With defamation of character, this kind of malice must be proven as well.
Insults and epithets are also not considered to be defamation of character. Instead these are considered to be angry outbursts of emotion with no real content other than to show extreme dislike. Opinion is also not considered to be defamatory as long is it is clear that it is one's opinion which is being asserted and cannot be mistaken for an assertion of fact.
