congrats, you looked up a definition. That's more research than you've done in most of your other posts, so i'm proud of you.
Now, everyone that can look up a definition gets to be a lawyer, because the definition automatically bestows on the person an entire legal knowledge of what it is they are reading!!!! Or perhaps not.
It's still not slander (which is spoken, not written, moron). It's also not libel unless and until lloyd proves at the civil court level that he did not rape that girl. You think he wants to go through that battle?
He'd have to sue, where the burden of proof in on him to prove it is a false statement and the mere existence of an acquittal does not prove that he didn't commit the rape for civil purposes, because there are two different burdens of proof in play.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is what applies at criminal cases....that requires about 99% assurance that he is guilty. However, at a civil claim, he has to show by a proponderance of the the evidence (meaning that he has to win 51% to 49% to even win).
He squeaked out enough doubt in the jury to drop them from 99% assurance. Do you think he will confidentially walk into court expecting to prove by a preponderance (51%) of the evidence that he didn't do it?
I'd love to see him do it.
Until he does and it has been judged by a jury to be libel, it's not libel.