Oh Duck
said
:
J R Kerr said :
the 2013 defamation act in the UK
your act has a ton of double speak...
then it covers the defense against libel/slander by proving that what you said is "substantially true." thats very confusing. what gives substance to the truth?
Just sort of stumbled on this - but thought I'd clarify a few points as this is my field. I think you may be getting confused between defamation, libel action and malicious falsehood.
Any statement is defamatory if seriously harms the reputation of an individual or business in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally.
Claimants do not have to prove defamatory statements are false, courts in England and Wales assume all defamatory statements are false. The onus is on the claimant to provide a defence. I think you mentioned libel tourism - which was rife before 2014 - this is because courts in E&W favour the claimant, unlike most other systems which favour the defendant.
To sue for libel in E&W you need to prove three things: that the publication is defamatory, that you have been identified, it was published to a third party.
Substantially true refers to the number of statements made, that it is 'on the whole' true. In a truth defence this means the defendant does not need to prove the truth of every publication. So for example, if someone posted a newsletter saying that J.B. beats their wife and swears at their children they would only need to prove the former allegation for it to be substantially true. The truth defence is complete protection against defamation action (excl. one obscure exception under the 1974 RoO A).
Honest opinion replaced the fair comment common law defence. Honest opinion is different than a truth defence. Opinions must be honestly held, not fair and should be based on [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification.
J R Kerr said :
the 2013 defamation act in the UK
removed
the common law defense of
fair comment
your act has a ton of double speak...
then it covers the defense against libel/slander by proving that what you said is "substantially true." thats very confusing. what gives substance to the truth?
Just sort of stumbled on this - but thought I'd clarify a few points as this is my field. I think you may be getting confused between defamation, libel action and malicious falsehood.
Any statement is defamatory if seriously harms the reputation of an individual or business in the minds of right-thinking members of society generally.
Claimants do not have to prove defamatory statements are false, courts in England and Wales assume all defamatory statements are false. The onus is on the claimant to provide a defence. I think you mentioned libel tourism - which was rife before 2014 - this is because courts in E&W favour the claimant, unlike most other systems which favour the defendant.
To sue for libel in E&W you need to prove three things: that the publication is defamatory, that you have been identified, it was published to a third party.
Substantially true refers to the number of statements made, that it is 'on the whole' true. In a truth defence this means the defendant does not need to prove the truth of every publication. So for example, if someone posted a newsletter saying that J.B. beats their wife and swears at their children they would only need to prove the former allegation for it to be substantially true. The truth defence is complete protection against defamation action (excl. one obscure exception under the 1974 RoO A).
Honest opinion replaced the fair comment common law defence. Honest opinion is different than a truth defence. Opinions must be honestly held, not fair and should be based on [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification.
Ironman: Autark
23-Sep-2019 10:40:31