Cyberlaw
DEFAMATION
Defamation is a complex and detailed tort. There is no statutory definition of defamation, but in common law it is the publication (in any form) by another of any statement which injures the plaintiff's reputation by exposing him to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or which tends to lower him in the esteem of right-thinking members of society. (Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 1240, per Lord Atkin). The tort of defamation is something of an oddity among torts: it is usually tried by a jury (though the Defamation Act 1996 makes low-value defamation triable by a judge alone), the right of action is extinguished by the death of either party, and no legal aid is available.
WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED
Subject to the differences between the two types of defamation, libel and slander (explained below), the claimant must prove: (1) that the statement was defamatory, (2) that it referred to him, and (3) that it was published, ie communicated, to a third party.
The onus will then shift to the defendant to prove any of the following three defences: (1) truth (or justification), (2) fair comment on a matter of public interest, or (3) that it was made on a privileged occasion.
In addition, some writers put forward the following as defences in their own right: (4) unintentional defamation, and (5) consent.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIBEL AND SLANDER
The two forms of defamation are libel and slander. The essential features of defamation are the same no matter whether libel or slander is involved. The difference between the two is nonetheless important. The distinction is poorly defined, but seems to hang on permanence however this in itself is insufficient. The basic differences between the torts of libel and slander are as follows:
(1) Libel is a defamatory statement in permanent form, for example, · writing · wax images (Monson v
Defamation is a complex and detailed tort. There is no statutory definition of defamation, but in common law it is the publication (in any form) by another of any statement which injures the plaintiff's reputation by exposing him to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or which tends to lower him in the esteem of right-thinking members of society. (Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 1240, per Lord Atkin). The tort of defamation is something of an oddity among torts: it is usually tried by a jury (though the Defamation Act 1996 makes low-value defamation triable by a judge alone), the right of action is extinguished by the death of either party, and no legal aid is available.
WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED
Subject to the differences between the two types of defamation, libel and slander (explained below), the claimant must prove: (1) that the statement was defamatory, (2) that it referred to him, and (3) that it was published, ie communicated, to a third party.
The onus will then shift to the defendant to prove any of the following three defences: (1) truth (or justification), (2) fair comment on a matter of public interest, or (3) that it was made on a privileged occasion.
In addition, some writers put forward the following as defences in their own right: (4) unintentional defamation, and (5) consent.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIBEL AND SLANDER
The two forms of defamation are libel and slander. The essential features of defamation are the same no matter whether libel or slander is involved. The difference between the two is nonetheless important. The distinction is poorly defined, but seems to hang on permanence however this in itself is insufficient. The basic differences between the torts of libel and slander are as follows:
(1) Libel is a defamatory statement in permanent form, for example, · writing · wax images (Monson v