Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law.The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). [1]
A statement is a "privileged statement" if the person responsible for its publication could prove it was a publication on matter of public interest, or was a peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal, Defamation Act 1996 reports of court proceedings protected by absolute privilege, or under other reports protected by qualified ...
While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement; where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official, they must additionally prove that the statement was made with actual malice (i.e. the intent to do harm ...
If the plaintiff can prove malice on the part of the defendant the common law defense of "fair comment" is defeated. The "actual malice" standard only applies when the statement is about a "public official", or a "public figure", or in some cases about a "matter of public interest".
The defence of qualified privilege became very important in the UK, especially after a case involving allegations made by the Sunday Times against the Irish Taoiseach Albert Reynolds. [1] [2] During that case the judge outlined a ten-point test of 'responsible journalism'. If reporters and editors followed these points, the judge said, they ...
Absolute privilege is a complete defence to an action for defamation in English law.If the defence of absolute privilege applies it is irrelevant that a defendant has acted with malice, knew information was false or acted solely to damage the reputation of the plaintiff. [1]
This doctrine is applied in matters in which truth is used as an absolute defence to a defamation claim brought against a public figure, but only false statements made with "actual malice" are subject to sanctions. [2] A defendant using truth as a defence in a defamation case is not required to justify every word of the alleged defamatory ...
In Hong Kong, a statutory defence of unintentional defamation exists in section 25 of the Defamation Ordinance (Cap. 21), but differs from the statutory innocent dissemination defence in the UK Defamation Act 1996 in the sense that under the Defamation Ordinance a defence is not specified for a party who is involved in electronic publications.