“Look, this guy’s a fraud. We know he’s a fraud. But let’s - what I want to talk about is what he’s done. His credibility is finished.” Strong words from talk show host Bill O’Reilly when talking about Prince Frederic von Anhalt, husband of Zsa Zsa Gabor and his claim that he is the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s newborn baby girl Dannielynn. But, $10 million dollars strong? von Anhalt thinks so.

The Prince, along with others, has claimed that he is the biological father of Dannielynn. Last Wednesday, von Anhalt filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles claiming that O’Reilly defamed him by calling him a “fraud.” Based upon the papers filed, he is seeking at least $10 million dollars in damages. Since O’Reilly made the statements, von Anhalt has been quoted as stating that people give him dirty looks when he goes to the grocery store. “They say, ‘Look, here comes the fraud,’” he said. “I get lots of e-mails from people bad-mouthing me. It’s very embarrassing.” But, is it $10 million dollars embarrassing? – probably not.

Under California law, defamation constitutes an injury to reputation; the injury may occur by means of libel or slander. In general, a written communication that is false, that is not protected by any privilege, and that exposes a person to contempt or ridicule or certain other reputational injuries, constitutes libel. A false and unprivileged oral communication attributing to a person specific misdeeds or certain unfavorable characteristics or qualities, or uttering certain other derogatory statements regarding a person, constitutes slander. Von Anhalt’s case most likely involves claims based upon slander because the alleged defamatory statement was spoken as opposed to written.

A defendant in a defamation case is not defenseless (say that three times fast). The truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. It could be argued that O’Reilly was stating the truth should it come out that von Anhalt is not the biological father. In addition, statements of opinion do not provide a basis for a defamation suit, but statements of fact do. For example, “John is an idiot.” would be an opinion while “John is an idiot who stole $50 dollars.” is a statement of fact which would give rise to a defamation suit, assuming that it was not true. If this isn’t confusing enough, different standards apply to different people. The law has a higher standard for public officials and public figures. In order to prevail in a defamation suit against either, the plaintiff must generally prove that the statement was made with “actual malice” - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Given that it is likely that von Anhalt is a “public figure” under the law and given that O’ Reilly has a strong argument, based upon the nature of his show, that he was only stating his opinion, if I was von Anhalt, I would not start counting that $10 million yet – but that’s just my opinion.