In reference to his continuous disregard of the public and the performance of his duty, the sign said "City Manger Joe Doe, a worthless weasel".
Are public officials different from individuals when it comes to Libel?

No - slander, libel laws apply to everyone.

Is there a specific problem?

Wouldn't this be considered "mudslining" in the political community?

Well if you look at political and even movie stars stars, look at the names people called Bush and now the names people are calling Obama and I would say that there has to be some area where there is a difference

Bush and Obama didn't have the time, energy or stomach to respond to critics, to get into your opinion vs my opinion vs public perception.

But the slander/libel laws are what they are.

Movie stars every now and then have had enough and do sue and do win - if the report is false.

In politics I think if you get down and wrestle with pigs you also get covered with mud and so they don't bother.

the sign said "City Manger Joe Doe, a worthless weasel".
are public officials different from individuals when it comes to Libel?Hello hader:

I agree with Judy. But the sign, as it is worded it, is NOT libel.

excon

... are public officials different from individuals when it comes to Libel?

Yes. If the official is considered a public figure, it's more difficult for the official to win a defamation case against one who says or writes something about that official.

But in any case, calling someone a "worthless weasel" is not, without more, defamatory.

The Supreme Court does hold libel cases bought by people in the public eye to a higher standard then cases by ordinary citizens.
The Law: Libel Liability: Test for Public Figures - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839536,00.html)

But I agree, the sign expresses an opinion and is not an accusation of wrong doing so is not actionable.

The Supreme Court does hold libel cases bought by people in the public eye to a higher standard then cases by ordinary citizens.
The Law: Libel Liability: Test for Public Figures - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,839536,00.html)
...

The linked article is dated Jun. 23, 1967! I don't recall if we even had the Internet back then. :)

The linked article is dated Jun. 23, 1967! I don't recall if we even had the Internet back then. :)

And that matters because?

"But in any case, calling someone a "worthless weasel" is not, without more, defamatory."
Run that one more time by me!
What are you saying? I want to be clear on what you said.

Ak lawyer Said: "But in any case, calling someone a "worthless weasel" is not, without more, defamatory."
Can someone explain what he is trying to say? Thanks!

I'm not a Lawyer... But most elected officials are weasels.

Its not libel by itself. There would need to be a more defamatory statement.

For example:

Not libel:
So and so is a worthless weasel

Libel:
So and so is a worthless weasel who stole from the people.

Thank you!