There are several subjects here, which should be explained:

a- Is exception of a notorious person a topical exclusion (that is one who affects a vice, naturally is not disturbed for mentioning it in his absence. Moreover, it is not a hidden and privacy affair being regarded as slander) or slandering about a notorious person is one of the slander types, and has been excluded as so called appropriation?

b- Is permit for slandering about notorious one restricted to the sins which he performs publicly, or it is permitted in all cases?

c- If someone is notorious in one place, and non-notorious and private in somewhere else, is slandering about him permitted in the second place too or not?

d- Is in the permit for slandering about notorious person, existence of conditions for bid to good and forbid of wrong necessary?

The reply to all of these questions depends on understanding the main point and reason for exclusion of this issue from slander's forbiddance.

It is inferred from above traditions that a notorious individual basically does not have any respect (the respect which is the hindrance for slander's permit).

In other words, such people (and cruel and innovator people) are not respectable in view of social personality, and their desecration is not forbidden, and therefore, giving up slander and preserving their reputation is not necessary.

If we deduce so from above traditions,– as the phrase
«لا غِیبَةَ لَهُ و لا حُرْمَةَ لَهُ», and such like prove, the reply to above questions is clarified, and it does not need more explanation, because based on rational and traditional proof, slander does not include such persons.

But it should be noted that apparently the notorious is one who has completely laid aside the veil of modesty, and is rude and fearless against all sins, and it does not include all of those who perform a sin publicly for any reason. Thus, it is possible to slander about such persons only in respect to the case for which they are notorious.