Which type of defamation is generally considered to be more harmful?

Libel is generally considered to be more harmful than slander because it involves written or published statements that can have a broader and more lasting impact. Written defamation, such as in newspapers, books, or online publications, reaches a wider audience and has a permanent record that can damage a person's reputation over time. The permanence of libelous statements, along with their ability to be shared and disseminated quickly in the digital age, amplifies their potential to harm an individual’s public perception and livelihood.

In contrast, slander involves spoken statements that may not reach as many people and are often not recorded. Although slander can also have serious consequences, it is typically viewed as less damaging due to its transient nature.

False advertising and injurious falsehood are related to misleading claims but are considered distinct from personal defamation. False advertising involves misleading statements about products or services rather than harming an individual's reputation, while injurious falsehood addresses false statements that affect a person's business interests rather than their personal character. Thus, libel's systemic capacity to permanently damage an individual's reputation makes it the form of defamation that is typically viewed as more harmful.