I.P replied to Steve Kramer:

Absolutely not in California.  It ** could be ** one of the
elements in a plantiff's claims in a suit alleging slander
(46.3), but it's not necessary.

CALIFORNIA CODES
CIVIL CODE
SECTION 43-46

43.  Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the
Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and
restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily
restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from
injury to his personal relations.

44.  Defamation is effected by either of the following:
  (a) Libel.
  (b) *Slander*.

45.  Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing,
printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye,
which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy,
or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency
to injure him in his occupation.

45a.  A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the
necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or
other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face.  Defamatory
language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the
plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as
a proximate result thereof.  Special damage is defined in Section
48a of this code (newspapers and broadcast stations).

46.  *Slander* is a false and unprivileged publication, orally
uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or
other means which:
  1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted,
convicted, or punished for crime;
  2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious,
contagious, or loathsome disease;
  3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office,
profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general
disqualification in those respects which the office or other
occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with
reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has
a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
  4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or
  5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.


What does Washington say about slander and libel?

RCW 9.58.010

Libel, what constitutes.

Every malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy,
sign[,] radio broadcasting or which shall in any other manner transmit
the human voice or reproduce the same from records or other appliances
or means, which shall tend: --

    (1) To expose any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or
obloquy, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social
intercourse; or

    (2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt,
ridicule or obloquy; or

    (3) To injure any person, corporation or association of persons in
his or their business or occupation, shall be libel. Every person who
publishes a libel shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[1935; 1909; 1891; 1881; 1879; 1869]

It's still a crime (crimial action) in Washington State.
Financial loss is not a necessary element of the crime.
(2) ....one deceased -- removed from California law.

California moved libel and slander from the Penal Code to the
Civil Code sometime after I studied law, obtained a degree in
Criminal Justice, and after I spent 10 years with the PD before
swapping my badge for a badge from the FD.

California also dropped "true statements" from the defination of
slander and libel.  The state also dropped offenses against the
character of a person who is deceased (Washington still has this).

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12