DEFAMATION
Defamation also called calumny, vilification, slander and libel is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.
Defamation is the publication of a statement which refers on a person's reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right–thinking members of society generally or tends to make then shun or avoid him. [1]
The tort of defamation protects a person's interest in his reputation. If the defendant had made an untrue statement, or what amounts to a statement, which is defamatory of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has a right of action against him unless the defendant...show more content...
Defamation of a person is held False until it is proved to b true. And if a person has stated that which is false and defamatory, malice is also assumed. But however, the plaintiff alleges in his plaint that the statements made are false and malicious, the motive of the defendant is not material in determining the damages. The motive of the defendant is totally irrelevant.
Nature of Libel
Defamatory statements maybe in written, printed or in the form of a caricature. eg. a scandalous picture [5]
Princess Irina of Russia, the wife of prince Youssoupoff , claimed damages for libel in a feature film entitles "Rasputin the mad monk", alleging that the MGM [6] , had published pictures and words in the film which were understood to mean that she there in called "Princess Natasha" had been raped and/or seduced by Rasputin. The jury ruled in favor of the princess and awarded her ВЈ25,000 damages. The trial court rendered this judgment and this was confirmed by the Court of appeal.
Under the defamation act of 1952, the broadcasting of any words by means of wireless telegraphy i.e. radio and television is treated as publication in
Law of Tort...Defamation
Get more content
During the history defamation has developed in two ways; slander and libel. The law leading slander focused on oral statements and libel on written ones. By the 1500 English printers had to be licensed and had to be linked to the government as by that time it was believed that written word had possibility to give a risk to political strength. However when the times passed the law progressed and these days freedom of expression is a foundation of democratic rights and freedoms therefore freedom of speech is necessary in making possible democracy to work and community involvement in decision–making.
When defamation comes to practice and people feels threatened with a defamation suit, the biggest focus is on whether or not there is...show more content...
Even though this is not that common in United Kingdom but it is worth keeping in our mind. Privacy laws quite often slow down investigative reporting aimed at exposing corrupt and illegal practices. Privacy laws, while important in protecting the private affairs of individuals, should not be misused to deny discussion of matters of public concern. One of the most recent cases was News of the World scandal where News of the World journalist Dan Evans and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire for misuse of private information and breach of confidence. Progress has been made in recent years in terms of securing respect for the right to freedom of expression. Efforts have been made to implement this right through specially constructed regional mechanisms. New opportunities are emerging for greater freedom of expression with the internet and worldwide satellite broadcasting. I a case Ferdinand v MGN Ltd was said:
"The action for misuse of private information has grown out of the older equitable claim for breach of confidence. Breach of confidence in its original form does still have a life of its own and may be relevant, for instance, where the Claimant is not in a position to invoke Article 8." The claim has been dismissed. Nonetheless new threats are emerging such as global media monopolies and pressures on independent media outlets. The freedom to impart Get
Cons of Laws
Defamation
The Pros and
Against
more content
Defamation is a published statement that damages someone's reputation or holds them up to ridicule (Mark, 2011, pg 207). It was originated in the church courts because a person's reputation was considered a part of his or her soul (Mark, 2011, pg 207). Any living person, small company (fewer than ten employees) or non–profit corporation can sue for defamation (Maark, 2011, pg 207). While the dead cannot sue for defamation, where their estates can sue over defamatory material published before the person died (Mark, 2011, pg186). Besides, anyone responsible for the statement or publication can be sued for defamation, including the journalist, editor, news director, producer, publisher and printer (Kenneth, 1996). When such stories make audiences think less of a person in the community, the person is said to have been defamed. If you have heard conversation in salons, tea rooms, dressing rooms, you would understand that defamation is almost a daily occurrence in our lives. In some circumstances, defamation may be justifiable to injure someone's reputation, therefore it takes two forms which are slander and libel (Maark, 2011). Any defamation that is "transitory", in other words, not fixed in a permanent medium, is usually considered slander (R1). Slander is defined as 'defamation in a transient form (Mark, 2011, pg 184). It is the spoken defamation of a person or entity, as speech (R1). It can also occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that
Civil and Criminal Defamation Laws
Get more content
The Defamation Act 1957 is an act relating to the laws of libel, slander and other malicious falsehoods. Defamation is a statement (of fact) about an individual, which is published, and which affects that person's reputation. By looking at the Defamation Act 1957 and the Malaysian Penal Code, it would be probably rational to note that we have these laws in order to protect a person's reputation regardless of the notion of press freedom since the right to publish by the media is not absolute[ http://repo.uum.edu.my/12982/1/1–s2.0–S1877.pdf]. The Malaysian Government through the Defamation Act 1957 and the Penal Code in the case of defamations there are some shortcomings and drawbacks of these acts which needs some transformations. There are few notions and recommendations which might help to soothe the current drawbacks of these acts.
Firstly, there should be a law stating that any defamation regime in Malaysia should respect the following rules namely; Public officials should not privileged from special protection under defamatory laws, public bodies should not be able to bring defamation suits and no one should be held liable in defamation for statements which are true. Privileges, however, are...show more content...
It is because blogs or other Internet communications should be distinguished from the traditional print media as the online materials are generally not subjected to supervision or moderation prior to their publication. In relation to this,the court observed in the case that the duty to establish the element of knowledge should fall on the person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, i.e. the petitioner. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is an insertion of a new section 114A to the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950 which came into force on 31st July
Get more content
Law Provisions for Journalists Facing Defamation Cases
The law of defamation exists to protect both the moral and professional reputation of the individual from unjustified attacks. The law tries to strike a balance between freedom of speech and a free press with the protection of an individual's reputation.
Should journalists face defamation cases there are defences available. Justification is one of these defences, to use this defence the journalist must prove that what they have written is substantially true. Before the defamation act of 1952 was passed, to succeed with a defence of justification you had to prove the exact truth of every defamatory statement made in the article in question....show more content...
The police officer used as a witness claimed he had seen the couple. This example also demonstrates another point that journalists should be aware of, to ensure their witnesses are prepared to give evidence. It is often the case that their account of events stands for more than the defendants ie. the journalist.
A plea of justification can also be difficult when reporting on investigations. It is obviously defamatory to report that somebody is guilty of an offence, or to report an accusation made by a third party. The only way a journalist can defend themselves is to prove the person committed the offence (exception to this are reporting a court case, a police statement, or the report is covered by privilege). If the journalist has reported that a person is suspected of being guilty then they need to prove there are 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion. An example of this is the Elaine Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA case. The Sun Newspaper tried to show there were reasonable grounds for suspicion after publishing a story headlined 'Nurse is probed over 18 deaths'. The police had been investigating the fact that a number of terminally ill children treated by one particular nurse had died. The police concluded there were no grounds to suspect the nurse but this was after The Sun had published their report. They paid ВЈ100,000 damages.
more content
Section 6, Get
Roger Miller Defamation
During the development stages, companies spend time discovering, creating, and establishing the purpose, meaning, and process of their organization. Initially, all companies set customer satisfaction as one priority, relationships with vendors as another priority, and maintaining stability as another. Very seldom do companies and individuals involved consider the unforeseen journeys that may come such as libel and slander. In the beginning, good intentions, good fortune, good product, and overall good is how companies start. Sometimes the better a company does, the more attention is drawn in, it is not always the same received in return. There are instances when other individuals attempt to bring down or destroy its competition through defamation. Roger Miller states defamation "involves wrongfully hurting a person's good reputation." Defamation is an action that is mostly harmful to the initiator more than anyone else. With that in mind, we all have constitutional rights along with constitutional laws to follow. Roger Miller mentions "breaching this duty in writing or in another permanent form constitutes the tort of libel." Some examples of permanent forms of libel are video...show more content... Any form of false accusations made about another individual falls under slander. While Proverbs 10:18 New Living Translation (NLT) states, "Hiding hatred makes you a liar; slandering others makes you a fool." In contrast, Matthew 5:11 New Living Translation (NLT) mentions, "God blesses you when people mock you and persecute you and lie about you and say all sorts of evil things against you because you are my followers." To have a case of slander move forward, damages such as economic or monetary losses must be proven. At any time false statements or accusations are presented and the truth cannot be proved all proceeded action will be denied. Slander per se another referral to slander when no proof is
Get more content
The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have evolved and been clarified throughout America's history up to present day. The meaning of libel is a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. Now there have been hundreds of cases of libel in the United States. Some significant court cases are ones like New York...show more content...
The second major cas in that helped to clarify the meaning of libel was the court case of Crutis Publishing Co. v Butts. The case helped to clarify the meaning of defamation claims brought by private individuals. The case held that news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials, although they may still be sued by public figures if the information they printed was recklessly gathered or if it was left unchecked. Again because it is difficult to prove either of theses, the press ended up with more freedom to print political corruption and scandal. The meaning of libel was clarified in other such court cases as Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). This case is about the murder of young man by police officer, Mr Nuccio. The victim's family appointed lawyer Elmer Gertz to represent them in court. The lawyer Gertz was later in an article Robert Welch's magazine, American Opinion, about communism and how the murder was a setup to try to create a communist government in america and discredit police officers. The article also said falsely that Mr Gertz was a crimminal and that he was a communist. Gertz filed a lawsuit stating that he was wrongly accused of being a communist and that the other statements made in the article were false. He used the court cases of New York Times v Sullivian and the other case Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts to prove his case. The Get more content
Defamation Law: Libel And Slander Essay
Defamation is an intentional tort involving a defamatory statement made by the defendant in regards to the plaintiff. In Steve's case he is being defamed in spoken word and written word by his opponent, Marcus Unwell. Steve should sue his opponent for slander and label per se, as Unwell's false comments caused Steve's integrity to be called into question; consequently, he lost his bid for office and faced financial hardship as people began to boycott his company. Unwell's comments fall into the category of slander per se as he alleged during speeches that Steve was an incompetent, communist whose company sold defective products; this statement directly seeks to damage Steve's business reputation. Steve's lawyer should also argue negligence
Get more content
Defamation Case Brief
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the...show more content...
A third party is somebody who is away from the person making the announcement and the issue of the statement. Disparate the original significance of the word published, a defamatory statement does not have to be printed in a book. Relatively, if the statement is heard over the television or seen scribbled on someone's door, it is considered to be published to succeed in a defamation claim, the statement must be proven to have produced injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. As an instance statement has cause trouble when the issue of the announcement lost effort as an outcome of the statement. Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory that are true. A statement that is true about a person even if it is very hurtful is not proven to be defamation. In most cases because of the nature, statements of judgment are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker. A statement must be unprivileged in order to be defamatory. Policymakers are positive that people cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For instance, when an eyewitness swears at trial and makes a statement that is both false and harmful, the eyewitness will be free to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is private. Whether a statement is confidential or
Get more content
Analysis of The Defamation
Act 2013
Defamation is a law that protects the reputation of people, companies and other organisations. If something is written down or in any other format permanently, it is libel, slander if it is spoken and thus damages can be rewarded. Despite this, it also can be protected by defences. This law allows people, companies and organisations to sue for anything that is harmful or negative towards them. It is deemed to be a defamatory statement if it: exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt, lowers them in estimation of the right–thinking members of the public, causes them to be shunned or avoided and/or disparages them in their profession, trade or workplace. There are a multitude of platforms in which you can defame someone, these include: newspapers, TV, radio, blogs and social media sites. It is pretty much always defamatory to suggest that a person is a liar, insolvent, a cheat or facing financial crisis. To determine whether this is libel or not, will depend on if the publisher of the statement has a defence, such as it is proved to be true.
Working as Journalists, it is important that we are aware of all the implications made by this law. When publishing and reporting, we are at risk of defaming individuals and groups even if we are just simply repeating something already published by another body. The 2013 Defamation act requires that the claimant must show the statement has caused or is likely to damage his/her reputation. In terms of companies, they must show that
more content
Get
Defamation is the general tort that encompasses statements that damages, hurts, or injures one's reputation. There are different forms of defamation, including libel and slander. The difference between libel and slander is simply whether the statements are written statements (libel) or spoken statements (slander). If a person suffers injury to his or her reputation as a result of another person's statements, he or she can sue under defamation law. It's important to remember that the government cannot punish a person for defamation because it is not a criminal offense. However, defamation is an intentional tort and a person can sue someone if he or she suffers injury because of that person's defamatory statements. As a result, defamation is a civil wrong.
In order to win a defamation case the following elements must be present: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) the statement caused injury, damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement; 4) the statement was false; 5) the statement did not fall into a privileged category. In order to gain a better understanding of the elements involved in a defamation lawsuit, it's important to take a closer look at the each of the elements (all listed above). In regards to the first element, a "statement" needs to be spoken, written, or otherwise expressed in some manner. Moreover, because the spoken word often fades
Get more content
The Pros And Cons Of Defamation
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
MEDIA LAW– 2007
1. DEFAMATION
1.Why a law of defamation?
Every member of society has an interest in retaining his or her personal reputation and standing. All members of the community also have an interest in a free flow of information and communication. There is a tension between these two interests.
The law represents a balance between personal interests in reputation on one hand and community interests in free speech and an uninhibited flow of information and opinions on the other.
The law of defamation in Australia has, until recently, lacked uniformity. Given the advances in technology and the growth of national publications, the pressure for...show more content...
It is not necessary that the plaintiff be named. The test will be whether the words would reasonably lead people acquainted with the plaintiff to the conclusion that he was the person referred to : Knuppfer v London Express [1944] AC 116.
If a defamatory statement made of a class or group can reasonably be understood to refer to every member of it, each one has a cause of action. In Pryke v The Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1984) 37 SASR 175, a 'Letter to the Editor' published in The Advertiser criticised the conduct of proceedings by an Industrial Commissioner, without specifying by name which of the 4 Commissioners had been concerned. All 4 Commissioners succeeded on the basis that the letter was defamatory of each of them. In Bjelke Petersen v Warburton [1987] 2 QdR 465, the Leader of the Opposition made statements about the 'government's corruption and its mismanagement', and said he would be asking questions
Media Law: Defamation, Copyright, Etc
about 'which Ministers had their hands in the till'. This was held capable of being defamatory of each of the 18 members of the Ministry. However, if the class is composed of too many people, then the matter will be incapable of identifying any particular individual.
Inappropriate use of photographs as 'background' to unrelated publications can lead to identification.
4.Parties
Not only individuals can sue. Partnerships or Get more content
By definition defamation is the act of injuring someone's character or reputation by false statements. Cases of defamation are only considered attacks on if they are made in a vindictive or malicious manner. The person's name is considered not only personal but proprietary right of reputation. Defamation is synonymous with the words libel and slander in terms of law.Defamation is a term that encompasses both libel and slander. Libel is a term used to describe visual defamation; as innewspaper articles or misleading pictures. Slander describes defamation that you can hear, not see. It is mostly oral statements that tarnish someone's reputation. Defamation is used mainly in politically based arenas;...show more content...
A legal claim based on defamation entitles the victim to recover aginst the person making the defamatory remarks or their emotional damages. On top of that the victim could be able to sue for punishment dammages. Defamation can be proved on a person's word alone. It is much more successful to have some sort of evidence like a paper, article, an e–mail, etc. In a defamation case damages do not have to be proven during the testomony. The plaintiff dose not have to testify that they were emotionaly destroyed or had to seek profesional help. The defamatory statement dose not have to be published out side of a company or group of people. Internal attacks can also be concidered defamatory. Each repition of the remark can be concidered a new attack. One of the biggest problems in proving defamation is that in some cases a person may have privlage to make the remarks. During a judicial proceding absolute privlage is given. Even if the remark is false the it can not be concidered slanderous in that setting. The defamer can make intentionaly untrue statements free of legal reprehension. A person with even a limited privlage such as an employer may still lose their privlage if the statement is made with malicious intent and reckless disregard.
Due to the impact defamation has on certain groups of people the Anti–Defamation Leauge (ADL) has been established. It is an American organization set up to fight Get more content
defamation Essay
Overview of Defamation: What is Defamation? In order to understand how the legal atmosphere and framework for defamation in Canada hinders political satire, it is important to understand the nature of the tort of defamation in Canada. Defamation is considered to be any statement made to the public that has the ability to damage reputation. The British definition is often cited by Canadian courts:"...tends to lower a person in the estimation of right–thinking members of society generally, or to cause him or her to be shunned and avoided, or to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business." The statements made against plaintiff's...show more content...
This makes the tort of defamation unique among all other common law torts. The Ontario Civil Liberties Association best explains this: "Defamation is the only common law tort (or cause of action) where damages– actual damage to reputation– and malice (malice of defamation) are assumed, and need not be proven in court. The result is a presumption of guilt– regarding falsity of the expression, malice of the defendant, and damages to the plaintiff– that can only be overturned if the defendant can prove one of the available defences, which are strictly limited and codified." With this interpretation, a defamation suit is more plaintiff friendly. In fact, defamation and damage to reputation are presumed if the plaintiff can establish that 1) the statement refers to them; 2) the statements were published to at least one other party; and 3) the words used are capable of causing harm to their reputation. Assuming that all three of these elements are present, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the statements are true or fall under one of the acceptable defenses. The plaintiff friendly nature of defamation is best exemplified in the decision by the Supreme Court that "the plaintiff is not required to show that the defendant intended to do harm, or even that the defendant was careless...the tort is thus one of strict
Get more content
Tort Of Defamation In Canada
PART A. IDENIFYING DEAMATION
In order to avoid defamation you need to understand it. The aim of this document is to explain what is defamation and what constitute as a defamatory material. It also outlines how defamatory material should be dealt with.
Defamation is a set of laws that protect people from getting their reputation injured. It is there to balance the right of citizens to protect their reputations with the democratic right to the community to freedom of expression (Media law Book polden and pearson). It offers remedies to aggrieved persons and offers defences to those accused of producing the defamatory material.
According to pearson and polden the common law definition have taken three forms, framing defamatory material as a matter that;
exposing the victim the victim to haterad, contempt or ridicule lower a person in the estimate of right thinking members of society generally cause person to be shunned or avoided
To defame someone you don't have to make up the false accusations yourself. You can defame a person by quoting someone else and it's a false defence if you claim you were only quoiting someone else. (The news manual book of readings). When someone brings a defamation case to the courts they must prove the following:
Imputation
Material published cannot have hidden meanings, but are judged by the words and what reasonable people make of it when reading he material. this means that readers don't have to read between the lines to get
Taking a Look at Defamation
–
Get more content
Defamation is a common issue for lawsuits among celebrities, as can be seen from numerous examples of court cases (Ciccatelli; Ember; Meade; Robinson and Stolberg; Rolph ). In 2016, The NY Times published an article about the 10$ million defamation complaint filed by Sean Penn, famous American actor and humanitarian, against Lee Daniels in September 2015 (Holson). The latter actor used Mr. Penn as an example for the domestic abuse to make a point about his fellow actor in the Empire television series Terrence Howard. In the interview to The Hollywood Reporter, Lee Daniels stated: "[Terrence Howard] ain't done nothing different than Marlon Brando or Sean Penn, and all of a sudden he's some f–in' demon," said Daniels at the time. "That's a sign of the time, of race, of where we are right now in America." (Gardner). This accusation was later published by The Hollywood Reporter and was picked up by a wide number of publications around the globe. The use of Sean Penn as an example was powered by the ground of accusations, published more than 20 years before that, stating that Sean Penn assaulted and abused his wife at the time, Madonna Louise Ciccone, a well–known singer. In order to win the case, Sean Penn would have to prove the defamatory nature of the statement. This raises several law issues, rooted in the legal definition of defamation (libel or slander) by US laws ("California Code, Civil Code – CIV В§ 44."): actual malice vs. opinion, harmful intent and defamation per se. Get more content
Defamation In Defamation
Definition Of Defamation
Defamation
Specific Tort
Tort of defamation protects reputation
Definition – Defamation
Winfield:
"publication of statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally or which makes them shun or avoid that person"
Right to reputation – if effected by means of words spoken or written is actionable as civil as well as criminal wrong
Dixon v Holden 1869
A man's reputation is his property and if possible more valuable than any other property. Hence an injury to a person's reputation results in substantial damage and the law recognizes it as a tort and a crime. A defamatory matter may be of any imputation concerning any person, or any...show more content...
Explanation 2– It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3– An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4– No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loath some state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Position: India & English
English Law: Difference between libel and slander is maintained in imposing liabilities. Slander is merely a civil wrong in English law except in certain situation it may amount to criminal wrong. Libel is both civil as well as criminal.
Indian Law: Slander and Libel are treated alike. Both are actionable per se.
Limitation Period: One year
Essentials
The words must be false and defamatory. The said words must refer to the plaintiff and The words must be published.
First –The words must be false and defamatory
Whether a statement is defamatory or not depends upon how the right thinking members of the society are likely to take it. A statement is said to be
Get more content
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
MEDIA LAW– 2007
1. DEFAMATION
1.Why a law of defamation?
Every member of society has an interest in retaining his or her personal reputation and standing. All members of the community also have an interest in a free flow of information and communication. There is a tension between these two interests.
The law represents a balance between personal interests in reputation on one hand and community interests in free speech and an uninhibited flow of information and opinions on the other.
The law of defamation in Australia has, until recently, lacked uniformity. Given the advances in technology and the growth of national publications, the pressure for uniformity gained...show more content...
In South Australia, the right dies with the individual: Defamation Act 2005 (SA) section 10Thus, it is not possible to defame the dead (in the sense of creating a risk of being sued). However, a statement relating to a dead person may also reflect upon some living person so as to give rise to a cause of action.
5.Publication
In this context publication means communicating the defamation to a third party. Republication gives rise to a fresh cause of action ie, repeating the defamatory words of another.
Media Law: Defamation, Copyright, Etc
Where republication is a natural and probable consequence of the original publication, those persons responsible for the original publication will also be held responsible for the further publication. For example, if an interview is recorded with a view to it being republished to other persons, then the person responsible for the original interview can be held responsible for those intended republications. The source will not be protected by reason of the subsequent publication being in an altered form, provided what is subsequently published is to the same effect.
6.Construction
The natural and ordinary meaning of words is the meaning in which the words would ordinarily be understood by ordinary people using their general knowledge and common sense. However, it is a question for the Judge to decide what this meaning is. The sense in which the words were intended or in fact understood is irrelevant to their proper construction
Get more content
DEFENCES TO DEFAMATION: FAIR REPORT, CONSENT, APOLOGY
* WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
Defamation is a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions. A man's reputation is his property, more valuable than any other property. The existing law fordefamation is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of speech and expression conferred by article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution and is saved by cl (2) of art 19. The wrong of defamation may be either committed by way of writing i.e. Libel or by way of speech i.e. Slander. There may be forms of Defamation that do not fall under Libel or Slander. A defamatory statement is a statement calculated to expose a person to hatred, contempt or...show more content... Innuendo is an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. The court in this case rejected the plea of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff had agreed to run the risk of the particular form that the statement might take. In one case a school superintendent was demoted and requested a statement of reasons from the school board. The school board did so in a confidential letter, which included the allegation that the superintendent had taken part in distributing fake election flyers. Apparently the superintendent was not pleased so he submitted the letter to a newspaper and the newspaper published the letter... The court held that plaintiff' consented to the publication of the letter. Consent to a defamatory statement relinquishes all rights to claim damages. In the Simi Garewal v T.N Ramachandran, the Bombay High Court dismissed the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff from publishing her nude photograph in a film magazine owned by the defendant. The picture was a film which was shot in India but did not release here and it was shown only in the United States. The Defendant's magazine proposed to publish a color photo of it and the plaintiff sought an injunction restraining the defendant from doing it. There was an agreement between the producer of the movie and the plaintiff
Get more content
Defences to Defamation
