Actually, slander is a vocal slur. A newspaper commits libel.
So, the issue would be: a) is it true? Was Liberace gay? If he was, then there is no libel. Truth is the ultimate defence against any such charge.
b) if Liberace was not gay, did the newspaper know that and yet continue its assertion? In other words, were they knowingly lying? Difficult to prove.
c) Even if the assertion was true, would it still matter? Libel implies a negative connotation, but we are constantly being told now that sexuality is either implicit in your genetic makeup, or merely a lifestyle choice, and one that is “equally valid” with anything else.
In the first case if the newspaper was guilty of that they could presumably be sued for making any kind of comment on someones personal characteristis, like alleging that someones eyes are blue.
If the second, the suers are implying that gayness impugns the character and is therefore a “bad thing”. If that is so, I think they could be guilty of a “hate crime” myself :)
I noted that implication of their claim as well. I wonder if that was too subtle for them to grasp.
The reference was to the UK, not to the US.
I don’t know about Dutch laws.. but this is scary... You know who had comparable “Hate” crime laws? Josef Stalin. do you know what the “hate” was? Anything the state disagreed with..