Which type of defamation is hardest to prove in a legal context?

Slander is generally considered the type of defamation that is hardest to prove in a legal context due to several factors. Slander specifically refers to spoken defamatory statements, which may not have the same enduring evidence as written statements. In a legal setting, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the spoken words were made before a third party, that they were false, and that they caused harm to the reputation of the person being defamed.

One of the main challenges with slander is the transient nature of spoken words compared to written works (libel) that can be documented and presented as evidence. Additionally, the standard of proof for slander can be higher, as the plaintiff often needs to demonstrate "special damages" – that is, specific economic losses incurred as a direct result of the slanderous statements.

In contrast, libel, which pertains to written defamation, is generally easier to establish because the printed words can be preserved as tangible evidence, alleviating issues related to memory recall or misrepresentation of the statements. This inherent difference in the nature of evidence makes slander comparatively harder to substantiate in a court of law.

Other options presented, like fraud, do not pertain to defamation; instead, they involve deception for personal gain