There are 4 main common law defences to defamation:
· Justification
· Fair comment
· Absolute privilege
· Qualified privilege
Justification
Justification basically means that no matter how damaging a statement
is it may actually be true, there the defence is that the truth can
never be defamation.
However justification is not easily proved as the burden of proof
rests upon the defendant to prove that the statement is true. An
example is: Jeffrey archer V The Star newspaper 1987
In this case the promiscuous Jeffrey archer was accused of having sex
with a prostitute. In court the prostitute gave most of the evidence
but she was compared to the politician's wife who was described as
elegant and of high social standing, so the witness lacked
credibility.
Difficulties also arrive where the allegation is of a general nature
rather than a specific one such as in:
Bookbinder V Tebbit 1989
During an election campaign Tebbit referred to the policies of a local
council as damn fool ideas. The policy in question was to print onto
all stationary the phrase "support nuclear free zone". However in
court the judge wouldn't allow Tebbit to introduce evidence that the
council were overspending which meant that the defendant was incapable
of supporting his allegation.
In cases where many allegations have been made section.5 of the
defamation act 1952 states that the case shouldn't fail "by reason
that the truth of every charge is not proved". Meaning substantiating
the truth in every allegation may not be possible but this won't
threaten the validity of the case.
Fair comment
The fair comment defence is sometimes known as the critics defence as
its' designed to protect the rights of the press to state valid
opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity,
political debate, public figures and general affairs. And secondly it
defends comments on works of art in the public eye such as theatre
productions, music and literature.
The play “Doubt” by John Patrick Shanley began with a sermon by Father Brendan Flynn, a well liked and enlightened neighborhood priest, who says, "Doubt can be a bond as powerful and sustaining as certainty". (Shanley 6) Sister Aloysius Beauvier is a strict traditional nun, who was declared to protect and secure St. Nicholas Church School. Father Flynn seems to be the protagonist in the play and Sister Aloysius is the antagonist. The whole play, sister Aloysius Beauvier suspected Father Flynn of molesting a 12-year-old boy named Donald Muller, who is the first African-American student in the St. Nicholas Church School. I think that Sister Aloysius’s overreacting, because Father Flynn is innocent. In the middle of these two characters, Sister James is a young and innocent teacher who wants to be neutral between the conflict of Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn.
Defamation is a tort action that has been widely recognized, nonetheless, it has only been within recent years, that the concept has been increasingly utilized in the employment context (Mcconnell, 2000, p. 78) . However, it is useful to first lay out the elements of the defamation tort as they occur in the employment setting. First, there must be a false, and defamatory statement. A statement is defamatory if it harms the employee's reputation or discourages others; such as potential employers, from wanting to have any contact with the employee. Second, the statement, be it written or oral, must be "published," that is, transmitted to a third party. Next, the defendant/employer must be responsible for the publication of the false and defamatory statement. Last, defamation damage to the plaintiff must occur; caused either by the statement itself, or by its actionable
Alley, Kristie. "Witch Trials - Accusers." Miner Descent. Miner Descent, 18 Nov. 2011. Web. 29
Villiers, M. d. (2008). Substantial Truth in Defamation Law. New South Wales: University of New South Wales.
People can have many different opinions depending on a topic, but what is truly difficult is getting a complete level of understanding from every opinion, or understanding the point of view of each opinion. Even accepting the points of view can be difficult for some people, who believe that their opinions are right. Luckily, people can learn about the other person’s frame of reference, and at the very least understand the topic or the person a little better. This particular topic is art, which is known for its multiple possible perceptions or its many different messages that it can send a person or group of people. In this way, people can learn more about the thought processes and feelings of others. Unfortunately, with differing opinions,
Anyone can be falsely accused of a crime. Everyone accused of a crime deserves a fair
Art for Art's Sake: Its Fallacy and Viciousness. The Art World, Vol.2. May 1917. 98-102
For instance, in the book to Kill a Mockingbird, or “TKAM” for short, when Miss Stephanie Crawford says “ Boo was sitting in the living room cutting some items from the Maycomb Tribune… Boo drove scissors into his parents’ legs.. and resumed his activities”(lee 11). Miss Stephanie Crawford had told two children this by the names of Jem and Scout Finch, the main characters in the story. Miss Stephanie Crawford was not at the event that she so claimed was true, therefore she had no idea of who this child really was like, or if he had even done these acts as she so gratefully told.These rumors are never known to be the truth or not, however people still spread them everywhere with no regard for the victims own life.
Everyone will have a least one job in their lifetime, and knowing how to recognize discrimination, so they are able to seek the proper help when needed to is very important. Discrimination in the work place can happen to anyone, and that is why people need to know the laws that protect employees against discrimination, ways employers can prevent discrimination, and the effects of discrimination in the workplace.
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name. While there are connections, each concentrate on different forms of defamation approaches. Normally, this will include not only the use of certain words to harm a reputation, but also activities such as finger signals or facial expressions in order to emphasize the fabrication that is being dispersed. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." Libel deals with printed matter, TV and radio broadcasts, movies and videotapes, social media sites, even blogs, emails, even drawings on a wall. An unpleasant statement is verbal; the statement is "slander." Slander explains defamation that you can overhear, not see. It is commonly spoken statements that distort someone's reputation. The government can't jail someone for making a defamatory statement since it does not break the law. Instead, defamation is considered to be an infringement of a person's ...
When defamation comes to practice and people feels threatened with a defamation suit, the biggest focus is on whether or not there is something offensive. Although this is important there is an additional, more practical way to look at it. The important question is whether you have a right to say it. And if the right was present there are few possible defences. Firstly what was said is true, secondly there was a duty to provide information, and lastly it was an expression of an opinion.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) changed the nature of libel suits by establishing that public figures must prove “‘actual malice’” to recover on a liability claim (Ibid 368) (Epstein and Walker 509). Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) applied this standard to all public figures. In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), Justice Powell held that private individuals were afforded more protection, noting that private citizens have less access to media channels and thus less ability to rebut defamatory articles published about them (Duhart 374). However, public figures, he contends, are much like public officials in that they “‘must accept certain necessary consequences of that involvement in public affairs’” (Ibid). Furthermore, decisions that cite Sidis, such as Friedan v. Friedan (1976), continue to ignore the passing of time as a means of abating one’s status as a public figure (Ibid). Friedan had been out of the public eye for “only” sixteen years; Sidis had sought seclusion for nearly thirty. “Thirty years ' retirement from public life should end the general public 's interest in the plaintiff14” yet evidently it does not always do so (Digital Repository at Maurer Law 420). Unfortunately, it is still true that “the passage of time usually has little or no effect on public figure status.” (Duhart
The meaning of libel is a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. Now there have been hundreds of cases of libel in the United States. Some significant court cases are ones like New York Times Co. v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case was about the alleged libel of Montgomery, Alabama. Commissioner L. B. Sullivan in the New York Times Magazine. The New York times supported Martin Luther King Jr. and his innocence in an alleged perjusry charge, Dr. king was accused of lieing under oath. This court case was one of the first major cases that established the principle of Actual Malice. Now Actual malice is the legal principle that the person printing the article had full knowledge that the statement was false or that the publisher acted recklessly in their disregard of finding if the statement was true or false. But the problem with this it is extremely hard to prove what is in a person’s head. This case was also a landmark case because before it, many news companies would not report on civil rights issues for fear of being sued for libel, but after this case companies were free to report on these issues. It allowed free speech to prevail in the United States. The case was seen as a...
Free speech is both a universal and national liberty. The United Nations and the United States of America believe that free speech is something that humans should be allowed to exercise. However, each respective group has their own limitations. These limitation, although broad, protect against free speech being taken too far. Like any liberty or privilege there must be a line in the sand to keep extremists from aggressively using and abusing this right. The United Nations formed "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." With in this declaration are 40 articles with a preamble examining the rights which they believe are basic and necessary. Article 19 from this declaration says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Jimmy was a short and a big headed kid. He was very smart and had brown hair. One day, he was walking in the long and narrow hallway between his classes with, his autographed football and work books in his hand, when his friend Sheen approached him. Sheen was Jimmy’s best friend. He was tall and had black hair. Sheen was considered by Jimmy, to be slow in the head. “Where’s our next class?” Jimmy asked.