Defamation
Defamation refers to the act of making false statements that harm a person's reputation. It encompasses both slander (spoken defamation) and libel (written defamation). To prove defamation, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research or with malicious intent. Defamation laws vary by jurisdiction, but generally aim to protect individuals from unjust damage to their reputation.
7 Key excerpts on "Defamation"
...9 Protecting reputation Defamation Definitions This part of the law attempts to protect a person’s reputation by allowing a remedy if unpleasant and damaging statements are made about them. By the end of the chapter, you should be able to decide whether or not the law is successful. The tort of Defamation is divided into two parts – libel and slander – but once the appropriate definition is met, the two branches have many matters in common. We will first define the two branches and then look at the other important issues common to both. Defamation The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines Defamation as 1. The bringing of ill fame upon anyone; disgrace; 2. The uttering of reproachful speeches, or contumelious language of any one, with an intent of raising an ill fame of the party thus reproached; and this extends to writing … For once, the dictionary does not really help us to understand what the word means. A more helpful definition is provided by Winfield: Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. (Winfield, p. 391) Libel Libel is generally thought of as a statement in permanent form, the obvious example being something which is written. Other statements which have been held to amount to libel include paintings and cartoons, statues, waxworks and effigies. The common view is that libel is more serious than slander because the statement tends to be spread more widely – a newspaper is read by many people. It is therefore not surprising that statute has made specific provision for other forms of statements, which are transitory, to be treated as libel...
eBook - ePub- Ursula Smartt(Author)
- 2020(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...In defending a libel action, the difference between a statement of verifiable fact and one of honest opinion can be crucial. As Lord Atkin defined it: Defamation is a publication of an untrue statement about a person that tends to lower his reputation in the opinion of ‘right-thinking members of the community’. (Sim v. Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237) The law of Defamation is at times concerned with conflicting issues of great sensitivity, involving both the protection of good reputation and the maintenance of the principle of free speech. The terms ‘libel’ and ‘slander’ are often used interchangeably to define Defamation. But there is a distinct difference. In Brent Walker Group plc v. Time Out Ltd [1991] 2 QB 33 Lord Justice Parker remarked on the absurdity of the ‘tangled web of the law of Defamation’. 3.3 Defamation in common law Until the coming into force of the Defamation Act 2013 in January 2014, the tort of Defamation was substantially governed by common law plus some statutory intervention, namely the Defamation Acts of 1952 and 1996. This included the important (and to an extent still existing) ‘offer of amends’ to speed up matters in the courts and to encourage the parties to settle. This includes an apology to the defamed individual and more importantly damages in the form of large sums of money. The basis of the tort of Defamation is injury to reputation, so it must be proved that the statement was communicated to someone other than the person defamed – a third party – because it can reasonably be assumed that a third party may well communicate the information independently of the author of it. See below 3.5 If the statement is not obviously defamatory, the claimant must show that it would be understood in a defamatory sense, such as by some innuendo (an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one) or inference (by suggestion or implication). It is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to refer to the claimant...
eBook - ePub- Mathias Klang, Andrew Murray, Mathias Klang, Andrew Murray(Authors)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...The statement must be injurious to the reputation or dignity of the person allegedly defamed and it must be published or communicated to another who must understand its connection with the person allegedly defamed. There are a number of common defences – including truth or justification, which is often, although not always, a complete defence – and a number of privileged positions for traditional media defendants. In civil law jurisdictions the action is frequently an aspect of the criminal law which may or may not be supported by civil damages. In the common law world, on the other hand, although criminal libel remains a possibility, an action for Defamation is usually discussed in terms of tortious injury to reputation. There are some significant differences between the law of Defamation in the US, particularly with regard to public figures, and that in the UK. In the former jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held the common law of Defamation to be incompatible with First Amendment rights in New York Times v Sullivan 10 and, as a consequence, public figures cannot sue for Defamation in the US in the absence of actual malice (meaning, in this context, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth rather than the usual sense of ill will, hatred or a purpose to injure). 11 Defamation and chilling There are a number of theoretical bases that are used to justify what is seen by many as the moral imperative of free speech. Arguments based on personal autonomy and the achievement of individual fulfilment relate primarily to individual interests, although it could be argued that it is for the wider good of society for individuals to be able to develop ideas and thoughts in the way that is fostered by free speech and expression...
eBook - ePub- Kenneth C. Creech(Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Chapter 11 D EFAMATION Libel and the Media Libel may be defined generally as a publication or broadcast that is injurious to the reputation of another. Libel includes defamatory material that is expressed in print, pictures, or signs or is broadcast by radio, television, or cable communications media. Gillmor and Barron define libel as “a defamatory, false, malicious, or negligent publication that tends to hold a person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, causing him or her to be shunned or avoided.” 1 Essentially, libel changes the way an individual is viewed by others. In the United States, there is no single definition of libel, because each state and the District of Columbia define libel for their own jurisdictions. Fortunately, the definitions are similar, which allows for general characteristics of libel to be deduced. Libel and slander have roots in English common law Libel and its spoken counterpart, slander, have roots in English common law. Traditionally, libel involved printing a defamatory statement, while slander was a verbal Defamation. Records indicate that slander was recognized as a cause of action as far back as the thirteenth century. Libel was criminal in its origin and has remained a common-law crime. Slander could only become a criminal offense when the words amounted to another offense, such as blasphemy or sedition. Defamation was part of England's ecclesiastical law of the Middle Ages and was punishable as a sin until the Protestant Reformation. The common law of the Middle Ages provided that: If one calls a man “wolf” or “hare” one must pay him three shillings, while if one calls a woman “harlot” and can not prove the truth of the charge, one must pay forty-five shillings …...
eBook - ePub- Timon Hughes-Davies, Nathan Tamblyn(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Chapter 15 Defamation This chapter discusses, in the first half, what constitutes the tort of Defamation, and in the second half, the defences to Defamation. What if someone writes a newspaper article accusing you of sexual misconduct? What if they suggest that you are a lawyer who embezzles client money? The previous chapter concerned privacy. This chapter concerns publicity. Defamation is the tort which protects a person’s reputation, that is, the regard which others have of that person. (This is not necessarily the reputation which the claimant deserves, or thinks they deserve.) For example, if a newspaper publishes an allegation that the claimant is a drug smuggler, the claimant might be able to sue in Defamation. A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. As with privacy, so too with Defamation, there is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, protecting one person’s privacy or reputation, and on the other, promoting freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas. But it also states that the exercise of these freedoms carries with it duties and responsibilities, and so may be subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. 1 1 The European Convention on Human Rights has been enacted into English law through the Human Rights Act 1998. See further Chapter 14. Previously, Defamation actions were tried before a judge, who would decide questions of law, and a jury, who would find the facts and decide the amount of compensation...
eBook - ePub- Sanmeet Kaur Dua, Chris Turner(Authors)
- 2019(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...8; Peck v UK [2003] SUMMARY ■ There are two types of Defamation: libel (a permanent form) and slander (a transitory form). ■ It is now required to prove that a claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer serious harm to his reputation as a result of the statement (and for a body trading for profit this must be financial loss). ■ Defamation is defined as a publication to a third party of a defamatory statement which refers to the claimant and causes serious harm to the claimant’s reputation and with no lawful justification. ■ A defamatory remark is one that lowers the estimation of the claimant in the minds of right-thinking people or would cause them to shun or avoid him. ■ Implying decency or honesty cannot be defamatory. ■ Defamation can be by an innuendo. ■ The claimant must be able to show that the statement referred to him personally so class actions usually fail and only succeed where the claimant can show that he is identifiable as a member of the class. ■ There are many defences available including: justification (the truth can never be defamatory however hurtful), honest opinion publication of matters of public interest, absolute privilege (generally proceedings in Parliament or in court), qualified privilege (in certain confidential communications between privileged parties), unintentional Defamation and innocent dissemination. ■ Remedies include both damages and injunctions....
eBook - ePub- David Rolph(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...At its inception, the law of Defamation provided a remedy for oral slanders uttered within local communities. Reputations and the damage done to them by injurious words could be closely circumscribed. The development of the printing press and the exponential increase in its use created further opportunities for individuals to create their reputation and for defamers to denigrate them. Beyond the printing press, the nineteenth and especially the twentieth centuries saw the development of electronic means of communication – radio, film, television and the Internet, to name but a few. These, in turn, generated even greater opportunities for the creation of, and damage to, reputations. This historical analysis, indicating the confluence of social and media changes and their impact on the concept of reputation, provides the background for the future development of the tort of Defamation, which will be discussed in a later chapter – the emergence of reputation as celebrity. It remains to be seen how adequately Defamation law, particularly the central concept of reputation, has developed to accommodate these profound social and technological changes, which are characteristic of the contemporary world....
