Types of Defamation: Libel

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Types of Defamation: Libel"

Rose Gray
7 years ago
Views:

2 Defined: Communication about a person that tends to hurt the person's reputation. It causes the reader or listener to think less of the person. The communication must be made to other people, not just to the person it's about.

website posting, email, a picture, or a radio or

3 Types of : Libel Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record Newspaper, letter, website posting, , a picture, or a radio or TV broadcast Proof of libel good defence = presumed damages

4 Types of : Slander Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record Normally it's a spoken statement but can also be a hand gesture or something similar Proof of slander good defence + proof of damages (financial loss) = compensation

5 Publication Publication occurs when information is negligently or intentionally communicated in any medium, from a newspaper to a website, to someone other than the person defamed. A tweet Defamatory comment allowed on municipal website Letters that contain unsupported derogatory accusations or false statements

6 What are the elements of a defamation claim? 1. a publication to one other than the person defamed; 2. a false statement of fact; 3. that is understood as 1. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and 2. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff

7 Vogel v. Felice, 26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 350 (2005) A statement that the plaintiff is a "Dumb Ass," even first among "Dumb Asses," communicates no factual proposition susceptible of proof or refutation. It is true that "dumb" by itself can convey the relatively concrete meaning "lacking in intelligence." Even so, depending on context, it may convey a lack less of objectively assayable mental function than of such imponderable and debatable virtues as judgment or wisdom. Here defendant did not use "dumb" in isolation, but as part of the idiomatic phrase, "dumb ass." When applied to a whole human being, the term "ass" is a general expression of contempt essentially devoid of factual content. Adding the word "dumb" merely converts "contemptible person" to "contemptible fool." Plaintiffs were justifiably insulted by this epithet, but they failed entirely to show how it could be found to convey a provable factual proposition.... If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim.

8 Defences Truth/Justification Consent Qualified Privilege Absolute Privilege

9 Truth/Justification Truth is an absolute defence to defamation Remember that defamation is a false statement of fact If the statement was accurate, then by definition it wasn t defamatory

10 Consent If the defendant can show that the plaintiff consented to the publication of the alleged defamatory statement or statements, it operates as a complete defence Ex: a person may consent to a third party or an organization investigating them and publishing its findings A person may submit defamatory comments about themselves for publication

11 Qualified Privilege Qualified privilege is a defence to defamation that applies when a person who makes a statement (that may be defamatory) has a legal, social or moral duty to make the statement, and the person who receives the communication has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it Qualified privilege is a complete defence to defamation BUT can be lost where there is actual malice OR if the limits of the duty or interest have been exceeded

12 What is Malice Making a defamatory comment: 1. Knowing it was false; or 2. With reckless indifference whether it is true or false; or 3. For the dominant purpose of injuring the plaintiff because of spite or animosity; or 4. For some other dominant purpose that is improper or indirect, or also, if the occasion is privileged, for a dominant purpose not related to the occasion Online review sites argue malice in using legal pressure against negative reviewers

13 New Defence: Fair Comment Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61 To successfully establish this defence, a defendant must prove that the words were: 1. comment; 2. based upon facts that are true; 3. made honestly and fairly; 4. without malice; and 5. on a matter of public interest

14 and Local Governments 1. Actions against those who criticize local governments 2. Actions against those who criticize government staff and Council members

15 of the Government Dixon v. Powell River (City), 2009 BCSC 406 Members of the community of Powell River criticized the Council s actions, including publishing a critical letter in an online community newspaper with additional community members publishing comments to the newsletter Court declared municipal government has no power to bring defamation action, finding Charterenshrined value of citizens freedom of expression to be paramount

16 of officials Roshard v. St. Dennis, 2013 BCSC 1388: The court held that slander that disparages the plaintiff s work reputation, including in the discharge of public office, is an exception to the usual requirement of special damages

17 Does Still Exist Public shaming is not defamation No suit in defamation for truthful comments

18 The Internet Can Destroy You Justine Sacco: PR executive fired over racist tweet Justine Sacco, 30, from New York, became a global hate figure Thousands angered by tweet sent by the PR consultant She lost her job and was trolled by thousands She said tweet to her 170 followers was misinterpreted 'I thought there was no way that anyone could possibly think it was literal'

19 Venue and Statute of Limitations Supreme Court within 2 years

INFORMATION SHEET ON LIBEL AND SLANDER

PAYNES SOLICITORS INFORMATION DOCUEMENTS COPYRIGHT 2009 PAYNES SOLICITORS donna@paynes solicitors.com www.paynes solicitors.com INFORMATION SHEET ON LIBEL AND SLANDER Essentially, libel and slander are