This paper explores the intersection of libel law and communication theory that occurs when libel juries assess the effect of a defamatory communication on others. The third-person hypothesis suggests that people often assume others will be more affected by potentially persuasive communications than they are themselves. An experiment was conducted in which students were exposed to a variety of defamatory newspaper articles. The results confirmed several predictions. First, readers estimated that others would be more affected by defamatory messages than the readers themselves would be. Second, this effect was magnified as the "others" became progressively more distant from these readers. Third, when the defamation was attributed to a negatively biased source the effect was also accentuated: readers themselves discounted the message, while assuming others would be even more influenced. It is suggested that courtroom assessments of the effects of defamatory communications on others may be influenced by such third-person perceptions.