Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person.

If a person injures the reputation of another he

does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the property. A man’s
reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than other property.

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation;
decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging,
hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person, is called defamation.

Scrutton LJ defined a defamatory statement as ‘a false statement about a man to his
discredit’.

Criminal and Civil Defamation–

Criminal Defamation: Criminal defamation is the act of offending or defaming a person by
committing a crime or offence. For criminal defamations, you could always get the liable person
or party prosecuted. It is studied in IPC as a criminal act.

Civil Defamation: Civil defamation involves no criminal offence, but on account of this kind of
defamation, you could sue the person to get a legal compensation for your defamation. It is
studied under law of torts i.e. as a civil wrong.

Libel and Slander-

English Law: Mainly because of historical reasons, English law divides actions for defamation
into Libel and Slander.

Libel is a representation made in a permanent form like writing, movie, picture etc. For e.g., X
printed some advertisement saying Y is bankrupt but Y was not thus it was representation in a
specific form.

Slander, on the other hand is the publication of a defamatory statement in transient form like
spoken words or gestures. For e.g., A questions the chastity of B in an interview, A is slanderous.

Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures Ltd[i]

The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character
Princess Natasha in the film ‘Rasputin, the Mad Monk’. On the basis that the film
suggested that, by reason of her identification with ‘Princess Natasha’, she had been
seduced by Rasputin. The defendant contended that if the film indicated any relations between
Rasputin and ‘Natasha’ it indicated a rape of Natasha and not a seduction.
Held- In a cinema film, not only the photographic part of it is considered to be libel but also the
speech which synchronises with it also. Slesser LJ said that defamation could include words
which cause a person to be shunned or avoided: ‘not only is the matter defamatory if it brings
the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by reason of some moral discredit on [the
plaintiff’s] part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that
without any moral discredit on [the plaintiff’s] part.Thus she was awarded with damages.

Distinction between Libel and Slander–

- -Libel is addressed to the eye while slander to the ear.
- -In English Criminal law, only libel has been recognized as an offence, slander is no offence.
-In Indian law, both are criminal offences under Section 499 and 500 of IPC.
-Under law of torts, slander is actionable and libel is actionable per se.

In D.P. Choudhary v. Kumari Manjulata[ii]

The plaintiff – respondent Manjulata about 17 years of age belonged to a distinguished family
and studied B.A. There was a publication of a news item in a local daily Dainik Navjyoti that last
night she ran away with a boy named Kamlesh; but she had gone to attend night classes. The
news item was untrue and negligently published with utter irresponsibility. She was shocked and
ridiculed by others. It was held that the action was defamatory and she was entitled with the
damages of Rs 10000/- by way of general damages.

Essentials of Defamation –

There are three main essentials of Defamation viz.,
1. 1.The statement must be published
Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of
right thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that
person.

The standard to be applied is that of a right minded citizen. A man of fair average intelligence,
and not that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or approved by the fair
minded members of the society generally.

Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy[iii]

An inquiry commission was setup for examining the facts and circumstances relating to
assassination of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi. The defendant, at a press conference alleged that the then
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu had prior information that LTTE cadre would make an
assassination bid on the life of Rajiv Gandhi. The plaintiff was engaged as a sr. counsel to the
then CM of TN. In discharge of his professional duties, the plaintiff cross examined the
defendant. During the proceeding, the defendant in the written conclusive submission, alleged
that the plaintiff had been receiving money from LTTE, a banned organization. The statement by
defendant was ex facie defamatory.

In Ramdhara v. Phulwatibai[iv]
It has been held that the imputation by tge defendant that the plaintiff, a widow of 45 year age, is
a keep of the maternal uncle of the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law, is not a mere vulgar abuse but
a definite imputation upon her chastity and thus constitutes defamation.

In South Indian Railway Co. v. Ramakrishna[v]

A ticket checker of railway asking for the identity proof and other documents as a part of his
duty is no defamation, as he has not published any defamatory statement.

THE INNUENDO –

Sometimes the statement may be prima facie innocent but because of some latent or secondary
meaning may be considered to be defamatory. When the natural and ordinary meaning is not
defamatory but the plaintiff wants to bring an action of defamation, he must prove the latent or
secondary meaning i.e.,Innuendowhich makes the statement defamatory. for e.g., the statement
that a lady has given birth to a child is defamatory when the lady is unmarried.

-Intention to defame is not necessary

In the Scottish case of Morrison v. Ritchie & Co.[vi] where damages were recovered against
the proprietors of a newspaper who in all innocence had announced in the paper that a lady, who
had in fact been married only a month, had given birth to twins.

2. 2.The statement must refer to the plaintiff

If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement
referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.

In Newstead v., London Express Newspapers Ltd.[vii]

The defendants published an article stating that ‘Harold Newstead, a Camberwell man’
had been convicted of bigamy. The story was true of Harold Newstead, a Camberwell barman.
The action for defamation was brought by another Harold Newstead, the barber. As the words
were considered to be understood as referring to the plaintiff, the defendants were liable.

The Delhi HC in Harsh Mendiratta v. Maharaj Singh[viii] said that an action for defamation
was maintainable only by the person who was defamed and not by his friends or relatives.

3. 3.Defamation must be published

Publication means making the defamatory matter known to some person other than the person
defamed and unless that is done, no civil action for defamation lies.
In the case of Mahender Ram v. Harnandan Prasad[ix]it was said when a defamatory letter is
written in urdu to the plaintiff and he doesn’t know urdu, he asks a third person to read it , it
is not defamation unless it was proved that at the time of writing letter defendant knew that urdu
was not known to the plaintiff.

DEFENCES AVAILABLE:
There are three defences of defamation namely –
1. 1.Justification or truth –
Under criminal law, merely proving that the statement was true is no defence but in civil law
merely showing truth is a good defence. In Alexander v. N.E. Rly [x], the plaintiff had been
convicted of riding a train from Leeds without having purchased a valid ticket. The penalty was a
fine and a period of imprisonment of fourteen days if he defaulted on the fine. However,
following the conviction, the defendant published a notice that the plaintiff was convicted and
issued a fine or three weeks imprisonment if in default. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant
had committed libel by describing the penalty issued to him inaccurately. The defendants argued
that the conviction was described with substantial and sufficient accuracy and the words so far as
they differed in their literal meaning from the words of the conviction were not libellous.
Judgment was given in favour of the defendants. The gist of the libel was that the plaintiff was
sentenced to pay a sum of money and, in default of payment, to be imprisoned. Blackburn J
noted that the substance of the libel was true but the question was whether what was stated
inaccurately was the gist of the libel.

2. 2.Fair Comment-
# The comment must be an expression of opinion rather than assertion of fact.
# The comment must be fair i.e. without malice.
# The matter commented upon must be of public interest.

3. Privilege-
There are certain occasions when the law recognizes the right to freedom of speech outweighs
the plaintiff’s right to reputation, the law treats those occasions as ‘Privileged’. These
are further of two types –

Absolute privilege- No action lies for the defamatory statement even though the statement is
false or made maliciously. It applies to :
Parliamentary Privilege, Judicial proceeding and State communication.

Qualified privilege- It is necessary that the statement must have been without malice. The
defendant has to prove that statement was made on a privileged occasion fairly.

Overview
Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes
both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements).

Elements
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement
purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault
amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity
who is the subject of the statement.

State-Specific Elements
Different states vary in their anti-defamation statutes. As such, courts in different states will
interpret defamation laws differently, and defamation statutes will vary somewhat from state to
state. In Davis v. Boeheim, 110 A.D.3d 1431 (N.Y. 2014), which is a New York state court case,
the court held that in determining whether a defamation claim is sufficient, a court must look at
whether the "contested statements are reasonably susceptible of a defamatory connotation."
However, as the Davis court held, because the courts recognize the plaintiff's right to seek
redress as well, many courts have declined from dismissing the case for failure to state a claim,
as long as the pleading meets the "minimum standard necessary to resist dismissal of the
complaint."

Burden Of Proof To Show Fault

Most states assume that a speaker who defames another necessarily has the requisite guilty state
of mind. In Levinsky's, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 F.3d 122 (1st Cir. 1997), the court held
that in Maine, all defamation claims need showing of fault, which requires the plaintiff to prove
that the defendant was at least negligent.

Actual Malice Standard

In The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that for a
publicly-known figure to succeed on a defamation claims, the public-figure plaintiff must show
that the false, defaming statements was said with "actual malice." The Sullivan court stated
that"actual malice" means that the defendant said the defamatory statement "with knowledge that
it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." The Sullivan court also
held that when the standard is actual malice, the plaintiff must prove actual malice by "clear and
convincing" evidence, rather than the usual burden of proof in a civil case, which is
the preponderance of the evidence standard. On this point, the precise language
the Sullivan  court uses is that the plaintiff must show "the convincing clarity which the
constitutional standard demands."

Privileges and Defense

Complete Defenses
Truth is widely accepted as a complete defense to all defamation claims.
An absolute privilege is also a complete defense to a defamation claim. Among other examples,
this includes statements made by witnesses during a judicial proceedings.

Qualified Privilege
In the defamation context, a qualified privilege permits someone to make a statement that would
typically be considered defamatory, but because of particular circumstances, a particular
statement made would not be considered to be defamatory. However, if the statement is made
with actual malice, then the speaker will no longer be entitled to the qualified privilege.
Among other examples, this includes statements made during legislative proceedings.

Further Reading
For more on defamation, see this Florida State University Law Review article, this Valparaiso
University Law Review article, and this Berkeley Law Review article.
Defamation, Libel, Slander and Defences Lecture
Share this: Facebook  Twitter  Reddit  LinkedIn  WhatsApp   
Defamation is the act of publishing an untrue statement which negatively affects someone’s
reputation. Taken at face value this definition is obviously far reaching. Luckily, both common
and statute law has developed a framework to limit the extent of the tort of defamation.

They key authority is the Defamation Act 2013, which helps straighten out the significant body
of case law which has built up over the years. The overall aim of the act was to rebalance the law
towards protecting freedom of speech.

The same general definition of defamation still applies, but its elements have been slightly recast
by the Act. The four primary components of defamation are:

1. A defamatory statement;
2. About the claimant;
3. Which is published; and
4. Which has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.

Libel and Slander

Libel and slander are simply two different types of defamation; defamation is the overarching
tort, libel and slander are just two different ways of committing that tort. They both remain privy
to the general principles governing the tort of defamation.

Libel

Libel refers to permanent defamatory statements, such as that which is written, broadcast, or
otherwise performed; s.1 of the Defamation Act 1952; s.28 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act
1984; s.4(1) of the Theatres Act 1968.

The ‘permanence’ requirement doesn’t mean ‘forever’, but rather communication which exists
for longer than the time the original message is communicated. Thus, the courts have gone as far
as suggesting that skywriting can constitute libel since the writing takes time to disperse, as
in Gulf Oil (GB) Ltd v Page [1987] Ch 327.

Words are not necessary; it merely must be a type of permanent communication, Monsoon v

Tussauds Ltd [1934] 50 TLR.

It should be noted that libel is also a criminal offence, as well as a tort.

Slander

Slander is a defamatory statement which is non-permanent. The key example is spoken word.
Gestures can also constitute slander, since they are a form of non-permanent communication.

Because non-permanent statements have a lesser effect than permanent statements, a claimant
must show that they have suffered a ‘special loss’, in effect a loss which can be estimated in
monetary terms. The courts however have stretched this definition to include loss of a marriage
prospect, Speight v Gosnay [1891] 60 LJQB 231, and loss of consortium, Lynch v Knight [1861]
9 HLC 777.

There are two exceptions to this rule. Firstly, if it is imputed that the claimant has committed a
criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, as per Gray v Jones [1939] 1 All ER 798.
Secondly, if the statements are calculated to disparage the claimant in his or her profession,
business or office, Foulger v Newcomb [1867] LR 2 Ex. 327. It should be noted that the
statement must be based on the claimant’s calling, rather than merely being an unrelated
statement which nevertheless might affect others’ perception of the claimant’s ability to
undertake that calling, Jones v Jones [1916] 2 AC 481; Thompson v Bridges [1925] 273 SW 529.

Slander is not a criminal offence.

Elements of Defamation

(1) The Statement Must Be Defamatory

The definition of a defamatory statement is found in the common law. The general concept can
be found through reference to a number of cases.

 The first instance of note is the definition advanced in Parmiter v Coupland [1840] 6

M&W 105 where Parker B defined it as “[a] publication, without justification or lawful
excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another, by exposing them to
hatred, contempt or ridicule”.
 This definition can be added to that employed in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237,
where Lord Atkin noted that the definition had widened to include words which “tend to
lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.”

There is no need for a claimant to show that the statement made had a particular effect on certain
persons, or the public in general, instead they must simply argue that the defamatory statement
would have had the abovementioned negative effect on the claimant’s reputation in the mind of
an ordinary, reasonable recipient. This principle is essentially included in s.1(1) of the 2013 Act,
which dictates the need to show either serious harm, or likely serious harm to reputation.

As a general rule, statements which are clearly a matter of raised passions or vitriol will not be
regarded as defamation, since the ordinary person will usually be held to know the difference
between a statement made out of anger and one made calmly, Penfold v Westcote [1806] 2 B & P
(NR) 335

With the general definition above in place, the nature of a defamatory can be best understood
through its application, as in Byrne v Deane  [1937] 1 KB 818 where the difficulty in applying
defamation was shown to involve not only evaluating the words used and their context, but also
the meaning that might reasonably be given to those words.

The scope of defamation can be seen in a wide range of scenarios. In Berkoff v Birchill [1996] a
statement not ordinarily defamatory was held to be so due to the claimant’s profession.
In Donovan v The Face [1992] (Unreported) an accusation itself was not defamatory, but the
implication was that the claimant was intentionally deceiving the public. See also the case
of Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331.

Defamation also need not be particularly insidious, Tolley v Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333.

(2) The Statement Must Be About the Claimant

It must be established that the defamatory statement is about the claimant. This will usually be
simple, if the claimant is named or identified. Sometimes, the exact subject of a statement will be
unclear. Nevertheless, if the claimant can be identified from the information included in the
statement, then this criterion will be satisfied, as in Morgan v Odhams Press [1971] 1 WLR
1239.

If a statement is made about an individual which is true, but through coincidence also applies to
another individual (who can be identified, as per Morgan v Odham Press) for whom it is untrue,
then a claim will still exist. This is illustrated by Newstead v London Express Newspaper
Ltd [1940] 1 KB 377.

There is a limit to this principle, because there comes a point at which a statement does not refer
to identifiable individuals, but to a class of persons. This can be seen in Knuppfer v London
Express Newspapers [1944] AC 116. The claim here, failed – there was nothing in the article
personally identifying the claimant.

There thus exists a vague point at which a reference to a class becomes a reference to identifiable
individuals. This can be seen in Le Fanu v Malcolmson [1848] 1 HLC 637.

(3) The Statement Must Be Published

As noted above, defamation is about communication of a statement. This is referred to as

publication, although this term has a specific legal meaning. The definition can be found
in Pullman v W. Hill & Co Ltd [1891] 1 QB 524. Lord Esher MR provided that “[t]he making
known of the defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of
whom it is written”. Intention is also necessary.

If it is reasonably foreseeable that a third party will read or receive a defamatory statement which
is sent directly to the claimant, then that will constitute publication, as in Theaker v
Richardson [1962] 1 WLR 151. See the case of Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32 to demonstrate a
lack of requisite foreseeability.

(4) The Statement Must Cause Serious Harm

This criterion is a new development, brought into force by s.1 of the 2013 Act. Although the case
law on this point is sparse, there exists one noted case, in the form of Cooke v MGN Ltd [2014]
EWHC 2831.
Defences

Truth

As per s.2(1) of the 2013 Act, if a statement is true, then this will form a complete defence. It
should be noted that the burden of proof for showing that a statement is true rests with the
defendant. The defendant does not have to show that every single characteristic of the statement
made is true, merely that it is substantially true. This can be seen Alexander v North Eastern
Railway Co [1865] 6 B & S 340.

Privilege

Individuals in certain roles are protected from defamation claims. This takes two forms; the first
being absolute privilege. This is enjoyed by Parliamentarians (as per the Bill of Rights 1668) and
members of the judiciary (as per s.14 of the Defamation Act 1996).

The second is qualified privilege, as per s.15 of the 1996 Act, and covers situations in which an
individual is obliged morally or statutorily to communicate information. Whilst an inaccurate
reference can be damaging, it will not give rise to a defamation claim here. The exception is if a
reference is made maliciously (as per Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1994] UKHL 7.)

Public Interest

As per s.4 of the 2013 Act, if a statement is made on a matter of public interest, and the
defendant reasonably believes that publishing the statement is in the public interest. Although
there is little guidance on what exactly constitutes public interest since 2013, Reynolds v Times
Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 provides a list of the factors which indicate whether a
statement is made in the public interest or not:

 Seriousness;
 Subject matter;
 Source;
 Verification;
 Status;
 Urgency;
 Comment from the claimant;
 Balance;
 Tone; and
 Circumstances.

In essence, the courts are seeking to make a distinction between diligent, proper journalism
published in good faith, and disingenuous editors attempting to use the public interest defence to
protect poor quality, salacious reporting.

Honest Opinion (Or ‘Fair Comment’)

As per s.3 of the 2013 Act, honest opinion will not be considered defamation. The key to
advancing this defence is that the statement must be presented as opinion, rather than fact, and
that the statements made are ones which are actually matters of opinion, rather than fact.

The opinion must also be one which the court regards as one which a reasonable person might
form based on the facts available to them – so conjecture which ignores obvious evidence to the
contrary will not be protected by this defence.

Reportage

As per s.7 of the 2013 Act, there are a variety of situations in which simply reporting what
another has said will be protected from defamation claims. This is based on the distinction
between republishing a statement, and merely reporting that a statement has been made.

Website Operators

As per s.5 of the 2013 Act, a website owner can defend itself from defamation claim by simply
pointing out that the statement was not one they made, but instead it was one made by a user.

A claimant can defeat this defence if they show that it was impossible for them to identify the
original author of the statement. Thus if a website operator provides users with absolute
anonymity, then it will be held responsible for the content posted there. A claimant can also
defeat this defence by showing that they asked the website operator to remove the defamatory
statement, but that they failed to do so.

Further Notes

The Dead Can’t Be Defamed (or Defame)

Although the tort is one of injuring reputation, this only applies to the reputations of the living.

Trial by Jury (with Permission)

There exists the ability for a defamation claim to be heard by a jury. This used to be a right, but
s.11 of the 2013 Act has removed it, allowing a trial by jury if ordered by a court. The
willingness of the courts to do this is doubtful, considering the added cost, time, and unreliability
this would add to any given case.

Limitation Period

The limitation period for claims for defamation is unusually short, lasting only a year in time
from when the statement occurred as per s.4A of the Limitation Act 1980. If a statement is made
and then repeated (in a form which is substantially the same), then this time limit starts upon the
first instance of publication, as per s.8 of the 2013 Act. This does not apply to publication in a
materially different form.
Company Reputation

Unless the harm is of a serious financial nature, organisations which trade for profit cannot bring
a claim for defamation, as per s.1(2) of the 2013 Act.

All Answers ltd, 'Defamation Lecture' (Lawteacher.net, February 2021)

https://www.lawteacher.net/modules/tort-law/defamation/lecture.php?vref=1

Libel, Slander, and Defamation Law: The Basics

Created by  FindLaw's team of legal writers and editors | Last updated October 02, 2019

There's always a delicate balance between one person's right to freedom of speech and another's
right to protect their good name. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper
and which run afoul of defamation law. The following provides an overview of defamation torts
and defamation claims.

Defamation Law: The Basics

The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts
someone's reputation, also called defamation of character. If the statement is made in writing and
published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is
"slander." Defamation is considered to be a civil wrong or a tort. A person that has suffered
a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law, which
would be called a defamation case.

Defamation law walks a fine line between the right to freedom of speech and the right of a
person to avoid defamation. On one hand, a reasonable person should have free speech to talk
about their experiences in a truthful manner without fear of a lawsuit if they say something
mean, but true, about someone else. On the other hand, people have a right to not have false
statements made that will damage their reputation. Determining what is a statement of fact and
what is a lie is called "absolute defense" and will end the case once it is proven. Then, the
winning side may sue for punitive damages depending on the types of defamation.  

Elements of a Defamation Lawsuit

Defamation changes per state laws, but there are some accepted standards that make laws similar
no matter where you are or who you are suing. Generally, in order to win your lawsuit, you must
show that:

1. Someone made a statement;

2. The statement was published;
3. The statement caused you injury;
4. The statement was false; and
5. The statement did not fall into a privileged category.
These terms and details are further defined below:

The Statement - A "statement" needs to be spoken (slander), written (libel), or otherwise

expressed in some manner. Because the spoken word often fades more quickly from memory,
slander is often considered less harmful than libel. These statements are especially damaging if
they involve a public or private individual and sexual misconduct or the abuse of minors.

Publication - For a statement to be published, a third party (someone other than the person
making the statement or the subject of the statement) must have seen, heard or read
the defamatory statement. Unlike the traditional meaning of the word "published," a defamatory
statement does not need to be printed. Rather, a statement heard over the television or seen
scrawled on someone's door is considered to be published.

Injury - To succeed in a defamation lawsuit, the statement must be shown to have caused

injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation
of the subject of the statement. For example, a statement has caused injury if the subject of the
statement lost work as a result of the statement.

Falsity - Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false.
A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements
of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.

Unprivileged - Lastly, in order for a statement to be defamatory, it must be unprivileged. You

cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For
example, when a witness testifies at trial and makes a statement that is both false and injurious,
the witness will be immune to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is
privileged.

Social Media and Defamation Law

Due to social media, it's now easier than ever to make a defamatory statement. That's
because social media services like Twitter and Facebook allow you to instantly "publish" a
statement that can reach millions of people. Whether it's a disparaging blog post, Facebook status
update, or YouTube video, online defamation is treated the same way as more traditional forms,
meaning that you can be sued for any defamatory statements you post online.

Higher Burdens for Defamation: Public Officials and Figures

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their minds about
elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection
from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation
lawsuit.

When an official is criticized in a false and injurious way for something that relates to their
behavior in office, the official must prove all of the above elements associated with normal
defamation, and must also show that the statement was made with "actual malice."
"Actual malice" was defined in a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1988, Hustler v.
Falwell. In that case, the court held that certain statements that would otherwise be defamatory
were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This meant that public officials could only win a defamation suit when the statement that was
made wasn't an honest mistake and was in fact published with the actual intent to harm the public
figure. Actual malice only occurs when the person making the statement knew the statement was
not true at the time the statement was made or had a reckless disregard for whether it was true or
not.

For other people that are in the public eye, such as celebrities, they too must prove that
the defamatory statements were made with actual malice.

Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander, traducement or injury) is the

oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their
reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.[1] In several countries, including South Korea,
[2]
 a true statement can also be considered defamation.
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have
been made to someone other than the person defamed.[3] Some common law jurisdictions also
distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as
printed words or images, called libel.[4] In the United States, false light laws protect against
statements which are not technically false but are misleading.[5]
In some jurisdictions, defamation is treated also as a crime.[6] The United Nations Human Rights
Committee ruled in 2012 that the libel law of one country, the Philippines, was inconsistent with
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as urging that
"State parties [to the Covenant] should consider the decriminalization of libel".[7] In Saudi
Arabia, defamation of the state, or a past or present ruler, is punishable
under terrorism legislation.[8]

Overview[edit]
As of 2017, at least 130 UNESCO member states retained criminal defamation laws.[9] In 2017,
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office of the Representative
on Freedom of the Media issued a report on criminal defamation and anti-blasphemy laws among
its member states, which found that defamation is criminalized in nearly three-quarters (42) of
the 57 OSCE participating states. Many of the laws pertaining to defamation include specific
provisions for harsher punishment for speech or publications critical of heads of state, public
officials, state bodies and the state itself. The OSCE report also noted that blasphemy and
religious insult laws exist in around one third of OSCE participating states;[10] many of these
combine blasphemy and religious insult with elements of hate speech legislation.[10]
In Africa, at least four member states decriminalized defamation between 2012 and 2017. The
ruling by the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights in Lohé Issa Konaté v. the Republic
of Burkina Faso set a precedent in the region against imprisonment as a legitimate penalty for
defamation, characterizing it as a violation of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights (ACHPR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Countries in every region have moved to advance the criminalization of defamation by extending
legislation to online content. Cybercrime and anti-terrorism laws passed throughout the world
have led to bloggers appearing before courts, with some serving time in prison.[9] The United
Nations, OSCE, Organisation of American States (OAS) and African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression stated in a joint declaration
in March 2017 that "general prohibitions on the dissemination of information based on vague
and ambiguous ideas, including 'false news' or 'non-objective information', are incompatible with
international standards for restrictions on freedom of expression...and should be abolished."[9]

Types[edit]
Slander[edit]
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (harmful statement in a
transient form, especially speech) and "libel", each of which gives a common law right of action.
Defamation is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not
necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require
publication.[11] The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in
which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting
form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or the like, then it is slander.
Libel[edit]
Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by
spoken words or gestures.[12] The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the
growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel.[13]
Cases involving libel[edit]
An early example of libel is the case of John Peter Zenger in 1735. Zenger was hired to
publish New York Weekly Journal. When he printed another man's article that criticized William
Cosby, who was then British Royal Governor of Colonial New York, Zenger was accused
of seditious libel.[14] The verdict was returned as Not Guilty on the charge of seditious libel,
because it was proven that all the statements Zenger had published about Cosby had been true, so
there was not an issue of defamation. Another example of libel is the case of New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan (1964). The U.S. Supreme Court overruled a state court in Alabama that had
found The New York Times guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticized Alabama
officials for mistreating student civil rights activists. Even though some of what The
Times printed was false, the court ruled in its favor, saying that libel of a public official requires
proof of actual malice, which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth".[15]
Proving libel[edit]
There are several things a person must prove to establish that libel has taken place. In the United
States, a person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without
adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen.
For a celebrity or public official, a person must prove the first three steps, and that the statement
was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[16] which is usually
specifically referred to as "actual malice".[17]
Scandalum magnatum[edit]
At one time, the honor of peers was especially protected by the law; while defamation of a
commoner was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a peer (or of a Great Officer of
State) was called scandalum magnatum, literally "the scandal of magnates."[18]

Criminal defamation[edit]
See also: Defamatory libel

Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions
for determining whether an offense has occurred. ARTICLE 19, a British free expression
advocacy group, has published global maps[19] charting the existence of criminal defamation law
across the globe, as well as showing countries that have special protections for political leaders
or functionaries of the state.[20]
There can be regional statutes that may differ from the national norm. For example, in the United
States, defamation is generally limited to the living. However, there are 7 states
(Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah) that have criminal statutes
regarding defamation of the dead.[21]
The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has also published a detailed
database on criminal and civil defamation provisions in 55 countries, including all European
countries, all member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the United States
and Canada.[22]
In a 2012 ruling on a complaint filed by a broadcaster who had been imprisoned for violating
Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights held that the
criminalization of libel without provision of a public figure doctrine – as in Philippine criminal
law – violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[7]
Early cases of criminal defamation[edit]
Questions of group libel have been appearing in common law for hundreds of years. One of the
earliest known cases of a defendant being tried for defamation of a group was the case of Rex v.
Orme and Nutt (1700). In this case, the jury found that the defendant was guilty of libeling
several subjects, though they did not specifically identify who these subjects were. A report of
the case told that the jury believed that "where a writing … inveighs against mankind in general,
or against a particular order of men, as for instance, men of the gown, this is no libel, but it must
descend to particulars and individuals to make it libel."[23] This jury believed that only
individuals who believed they were specifically defamed had a claim to a libel case. Since the
jury was unable to identify the exact people who were being defamed, there was no cause to
identify the statements were a libel.
Another early English group libel which has been frequently cited is King v. Osborne (1732). In
this case, the defendant was on trial "for printing a libel reflecting upon the Portuguese Jews."
The printing in question claimed that Jews who had arrived in London from Portugal burned a
Jewish woman to death when she had a child with a Christian man, and that this act was
common. Following Osborne's anti-Semitic publication, several Jews were attacked. Initially, the
judge seemed to believe the court could do nothing since no individual was singled out by
Osborne's writings. However, the court concluded that "since the publication implied the act was
one Jews frequently did, the whole community of Jews was defamed."[24] Though various reports
of this case give differing accounts of the crime, this report clearly shows a ruling based on
group libel. Since laws restricting libel were accepted at this time because of its tendency to lead
to a breach of peace, group libel laws were justified because they showed potential for an equal
or perhaps greater risk of violence.[25] For this reason, group libel cases are criminal even though
most libel cases are civil torts.

History[edit]
From early times, people have comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a
public manner (convicium adversus bonos mores).
The Praetorian Edict, codified circa AD 130, declared that an action could be brought up for
shouting at someone contrary to good morals: "qui, adversus bonos mores convicium cui fecisse
cuiusve opera factum esse dicitur, quo adversus bonos mores convicium fieret, in eum iudicium
dabo."[26] In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation.
According to Ulpian, not all shouting was actionable. Drawing on the argument of Labeo, he
asserted that the offense consisted in shouting contrary to the morals of the city ("adversus bonos
mores huius civitatis") something apt to bring in disrepute or contempt ("quae... ad infamiam vel
invidiam alicuius spectaret") the person exposed thereto.[27] Any act apt to bring another person
into disrepute gave rise to an actio injurarum.[28] In such a case the truth of the statements was no
justification for the public and insulting manner in which they had been made. But even in public
matters, the accused had the opportunity to justify his actions by openly stating what he
considered necessary for public safety to be denounced by the libel, and proving his assertions to
be true.[29] The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the
offense lay in the content of the imputation, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was
therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false
reputation.
Roman law was aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it
protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long
confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the
significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included
practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of
the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At
the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and
writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and
under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations
or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with
very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.
In Anglo-Saxon England, slander was punished by cutting out the tongue.[30]

Defences[edit]
Even if a statement is defamatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are
permissible in law.
Truth[edit]
See also: Substantial truth

Proving adverse public character statements to be true is often the best defense against a
prosecution for libel or defamation. Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will
likely need to apply some other kind of defense.
Another important aspect of defamation is the difference between fact and opinion. Statements
made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are
not actionable. Some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and
opinion. To win damages in a libel case, the plaintiff must first show that the statements were
"statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second that these statements
were false. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion, relying
on opinion privilege. One of the major tests to distinguish whether a statement is fact or opinion
is whether the statement can be proved true or false in a court of law. If the statement can be
proved true or false, then, on that basis, the case will be heard by a jury to determine whether it is
true or false. If the statement cannot be proved true or false, the court may dismiss the libel case
without it ever going to a jury to find facts in the case.[citation needed]
Under English common law, proving the truth of the allegation was originally a valid defense
only in civil libel cases. Criminal libel was construed as an offence against the public at large
based on the tendency of the libel to provoke breach of peace, rather than being a crime based
upon the actual defamation per se; its veracity was therefore considered irrelevant. Section 6 of
the Libel Act 1843 allowed the proven truth of the allegation to be used as a valid defense in
criminal libel cases, but only if the defendant also demonstrated that publication was for the
"Public Benefit".[31]
In some systems, however, notably the Philippines, truth alone is not a defense.[32]
It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the
specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.
Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the
interest of the public".[33][34]
Noonan v. Staples[35] is sometimes cited as precedent that truth is not always a defense to libel in
the U.S., but the case is actually not valid precedent on that issue because Staples did not argue
First Amendment protection, which is one theory for truth as complete defense, for its
statements.[36] The court assumed in this case that the Massachusetts law was constitutional under
the First Amendment without it being argued by the parties.
In a 2012 ruling involving Philippine libel law, the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights commented, "Penal defamation laws should include defense of truth."[7]
Privilege and malice[edit]
Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have
to be met before this protection is granted. Privilege is any circumstance that justifies or excuses
a prima facie tort. It can be said that privilege recognizes a defendant's action stemmed from an
interest of social importance – and that society wants to protect such interests by not punishing
those who pursue them. Privilege can be argued whenever a defendant can show that he acted
from a justifiable motive. While some privileges have long been recognized, the court may create
a new privilege for particular circumstances – privilege as an affirmative defense is a potentially
ever-evolving doctrine. Such newly created or circumstantially recognized privileges are referred
to as residual justification privileges.
There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:

 "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory,
even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this
may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or
statements made in a session of the legislature by a member thereof (known as
'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
 "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances
where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example
would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public
bodies such as the police and fire departments. Another example would be that a professor –
acting in good faith and honesty – may write an unsatisfactory letter of reference with
unsatisfactory information. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but
does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.[citation
needed]

Other defenses[edit]
Defenses to claims of defamation include:

 Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are
generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the
reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the
defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the
newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
 Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory
assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims
usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some
jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United
States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require
recognition of an opinion privilege.[37]
 Mere vulgar abuse is an insult that is not necessarily defamatory because it is not
intended to be taken literally or believed, or likely to cause real damage to a reputation.
Vituperative statements made in anger, such as calling someone "an arse" during a drunken
argument, would likely be considered mere vulgar abuse and not defamatory.
 Fair comment on a matter of public interest, arguments made with an honest belief in
their soundness on a matter of public interest (such as regarding official acts) are defendable
against a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable
person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected. In the US fair
comment is a common law defense, and it has been argued has been superseded by
constitutional defenses.
 Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the
dissemination of the statement.
 Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual
knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was
defamatory. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory
letter. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence.
 Claimant is incapable of further defamation – e.g., the claimant's position in the
community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a
claimant could be said to be "libel-proof", since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an
essential element for a libel claim. Essentially, the defense is that the person had such a
bad reputation before the libel, that no further damage could possibly have been caused by
the making of the statement.[38]
 Statute of limitations. Most jurisdictions require that a lawsuit be brought within a limited
period of time. If the alleged libel occurs in a mass media publication such as a newspaper or
the Internet, the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of publication, not when the
plaintiff first learns of the communication.[39]
 No Third-party communication: If an employer were to bring an employee into a
sound-proof, isolated room, and accuse him of embezzling company money, the employee
would have no defamation recourse, since no one other than the would-be plaintiff and
would-be defendant heard the false statement.
 No actual injury: If there is third-party communication, but the third-party hearing the
defamatory statement does not believe the statement, or does not care, then there is no injury,
and therefore, no recourse.
 Slander per-se: is an exception to Slander (presume general damages). Slander per-se
states that an individual has: 1. A loathsome disease, 2. Business improprieties, 3.
Committed a crime or have been in prison for a crime, 4. Committed sexual
improprieties/impotent.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not
actually capable of being defamatory – an insulting statement that does not actually harm
someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous. Also, the public figure doctrine, also called the
absence of malice rule, may be used as a defense.
Public figure doctrine (absence of malice)[edit]
Not to be confused with custom Absence of Malice, the film.

In the United States, special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning
public figures, which can be used as a defense. A series of court rulings led by New York Times
Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate
public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published
knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth (also known as actual malice).[40]
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements: the plaintiff must prove that
the information was published, the plaintiff was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks
were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that
the defendant is at fault.
The Associated Press estimates that 95% of libel cases involving news stories do not arise from
high-profile news stories, but "run of the mill" local stories like news coverage of local criminal
investigations or trials, or business profiles.[41] Media liability insurance is available to
newspapers to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits
By Coulter Boeschen

Defamation is a complex kind of tort case (a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for harm). In
simplified terms, a defamation claim can arise when one person makes an untrue factual
statement about someone else. However, if a plaintiff could successfully sue every time his or
her feelings got hurt, there would be more defamation lawsuits than the legal system could
handle, so it's not quite that simple. This article discusses the key legal concepts behind
defamation cases, the different types of defamation (libel and slander), and more.

Defamation, Harm to Reputation, and Free Speech

The essential harm alleged in a defamation claim is often defined as something along the lines of
"damage to the plaintiff's reputation in the community." Because reputation is such an intangible
thing, and because of the tendency of some people to react strongly to perceived insults,
defamation has evolved—over centuries of legal decisions—into a complex concept filled with
safeguards and requirements designed to weed out weak or even frivolous claims.

The right to free speech only adds to the complexity. It may be a common misconception that
anyone can say whatever they want (other than shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), but the
right to free speech is not an absolute right in all situations. Serious damage to a plaintiff’s
reputation can cause real harm to their livelihood and well-being, so the rules of defamation try
to balance protection of reputation with the constitutional rules of freedom of speech. Learn
more about defamation and First Amendment rights.

The Essential Elements of Defamation

The two kinds of defamation (slander and libel) are discussed below. The essential elements of
either kind typically include 1) a defamatory statement 2) that is "published" to a third party
(someone other than the plaintiff and the defendant).

Defamation laws vary from state to state, but a "defamatory statement" is usually defined as one
that an ordinary person would find damaging to their reputation and character. Typically, a judge
will determine if the statement is actually defamatory. Only if it is unclear whether the statement
is defamatory—either because of the context in which it was made or because of multiple
possible interpretations—will the jury be asked to make the assessment.

Slander Versus Libel

Before the advent of modern media, there were only two kinds of communication: spoken and
written. Slander pertained to spoken defamation and libel to written. Where defamatory
statements published via radio, television or the internet fit into these categories is not a clear-cut
matter. For now, it may be easiest to think of slander as spoken defamation to a small audience
(or just one other person) and libel as any written/posted defamation or spoken or video
defamation to a large audience. Generally, it is up to the judge, and not the jury, in a defamation
case to determine which category a certain statement fits into.

Elements of Slander
There are two types of slander: slander and slander per se. In the first kind of slander, the
plaintiff must prove the defendant made a defamatory statement to at least one other person (i.e.
the essential defamation elements) and that the plaintiff suffered what are referred to as "special
damages" as a result of the defamation. Special damages are actual harm like loss of customers,
being fired, or some other financial harm.

A slander per se claim does not require that the plaintiff prove special damages. This is because
slander per se claims involve categories of defamatory statements that are presumed to be
damaging to the plaintiff. While the categories may change a little from state to state, and evolve
over the years, some of the most common slander per se categories are:

 imputing criminal conduct to the plaintiff

 saying that the plaintiff has certain types of communicable diseases, and

 any harmful statement about the plaintiff's profession or business.

Elements of Libel
If the defamatory statement falls into the category of libel, the plaintiff only needs to prove the
essential elements, i.e. 1) the defendant published a defamatory statement about the plaintiff and
2) other people were exposed to the statement. There are no additional requirements because the
law presumes that once the publication of a defamatory statement has been made in written or
other formats, the statement will remain in the public sphere for a long time and continue to do
harm.

Defamation Damages

Once the plaintiff has successfully proved defamation, "general damages" are presumed. The
plaintiff is not simply limited to damages reflecting his or her economic losses, but the mental
anguish and other emotional distress that the law presumes to result from having your reputation
harmed. Depending on what the plaintiff proves about the defendant’s intentions, and the type of
defendant, punitive damages may also be awarded to the plaintiff. Learn more about calculating
damages in a defamation case.

Defenses to a Defamation Claim

Generally, if the defendant can prove that what he or she said or published about the plaintiff was
true, the plaintiff will lose the case. In the case of defendants like certain media outlets (e.g.
newspapers), the plaintiff must prove the statement was untrue—the media defendant is not
required to prove its publication was true to defend the case.
Another defense to defamation is privilege. When the defendant is a certain type of public
official or the statement was made during certain official proceedings, the statement may be
"privileged," and therefore might not form the basis of a defamation lawsuit. Learn more
about defenses to a defamation lawsuit.

Tort of Defamation Cases

Defamation is nothing but the attack on a person’s reputation. It refers to a malicious and deliberate
attempt by somebody to harm a person’s reputation. The most important requirement of defamation
is that the defamatory statement must be false. Even negative intention may be an ingredient of
defamation.

Depending on the manner in which one makes a false statement, defamation may be either libel or
slander. Libel basically means defamation in a permanent or written form. For example, a written or
printed claim against a person is libel.

On the other hand, slander means a defamatory statement in a transient form. For example, if a
person says something defamatory against somebody, he commits slander.

Another difference between libel and slander is the punishment they attract. Under common law,
libel is a criminal offence as well as a civil wrong, while slander is just a civil wrong. However, that
is not the case in India. According to Indian law, both libel and slander can be criminal offences as
well as civil wrongs.

Remedy against Defamation

As we have seen above, defamation is an offence and even a civil wrong. This means that a person
suffering defamation can opt for both remedies. He can file a criminal complaint under Section 499
IPC, which defines defamation. Conviction under this provision attracts the punishment of
imprisonment unto 2 years or fine or both.

On the other hand, a person suffering from defamation can also file a civil suit claiming damages.
The extent of damages depends on factors like the nature of statements, the amount of loss, etc.
Many celebrities, politicians and known persons seek crores of Rupees as damages for defamation.

Defences against Defamation

There are certain defences a person can take to escape liability of compensation for defamation. The
following are some such defences:

1) Truth
Truth is the most important defence or justification for defamation. This is because only false
statements against a person constitute defamation. Hence, if the person making
the statements proves them to be true, he can escape liability. However, this defence might not
apply in criminal proceedings for defamation.

The burden of proving the truthfulness of a statement always lies on the defendant alone.
Furthermore, he must prove the truthfulness in substance and not summarily. If the statement is
false, he cannot take the defence of believing it to be true in his own mind.

2) Fair and bona fide comment

The defendant in a claim of defamation can take the defence of making a fair and bona fide
comment. Thus, making fair and reasonable criticism without any malicious intention does not
amount to defamation. For example, making statements against maladministration by
a government’s cabinet minister might not amount to defamation.

The defendant, in this case, needs to prove that he did not possess mala fine intentions. He must also
justify his statements by showing how he had fair or bona fide intentions.

3) Privilege

The law sometimes grants certain privileges to particular persons in some situations. Any statements
by a person enjoying such privileges cannot amount to defamation.

For example, a Member of Parliament has an absolute privilege for any statements he makes in
Parliament. The Constitution grants complete immunity from prosecution for defamation for such
statements. Such privileges sometimes exist in judicial proceedings as well.

4) Apology

In case the person who makes a defamatory remark later issues an apology, he can escape liability
of compensation. For this defence, the person suffering the tort of defamation must accept the
apology.

5) Amends

Under English law, amends are justifiable defences for defamation. Amends mean correction or
retraction of the defamatory statements by the defendant. For example, a newspaper making a false
statement against a person may issue a clarification later.