Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel (written, printed, posted online, published in mass media) and slander (oral speech). It is treated as a civil wrong ( tort , delict ), as a criminal offence , or both.
Truth is an absolute defense against defamation in the United States, [1] meaning true statements cannot be defamatory. [ 2 ] Most states recognize that some categories of false statements are considered to be defamatory per se , such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement caused them ...
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world.
A defendant using truth as a defence in a defamation case is not required to justify every word of the alleged defamatory statements. It is sufficient to prove that "the substance, the gist, the sting, of the matter is true." [3]
Slander and gossip are equally evil, and the initial speaker is responsible for any further damage caused as the report is spread. Unless there is a compelling reason to speak ill of someone, as is the case of protect oneself or others against harm, it is not permissible even if the account be true.
In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements in the United States unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. [3]
The Hindustani language employs a large number of profanities across the Hindi-speaking diaspora. Idiomatic expressions, particularly profanity, are not always directly translatable into other languages, and make little sense even when they can be translated. Many English translations may not offer the full meaning of the profanity used in the ...
That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech. [ 1 ] False light differs from defamation primarily in being intended "to protect the plaintiff 's mental or emotional well-being", rather than to protect a plaintiff's reputation as is the case with the tort of defamation [ 2 ] and in being about the impression created ...