3,009
edits
Difference between revisions of "Defamation: Libel and Slander"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Defamation: Libel and Slander (view source)
Revision as of 00:14, 19 February 2015
, 00:14, 19 February 2015→2. Absolute privilege
Dial-A-Law (talk | contribs) |
Dial-A-Law (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying that someone may sue them. The 3 main examples of this defence are statements made: | People must be able to speak freely in our justice and political systems without worrying that someone may sue them. The 3 main examples of this defence are statements made: | ||
*in Parliament. | |||
*as evidence at a trial or in court documents, in a criminal or civil case. | |||
*to a quasi-judicial body, such as a regulatory professional association like the law society, that is investigating a complaint. | |||
This privilege does not apply if a person repeats their statement outside of Parliament or the court or regulatory process. It also does not apply if a person tells someone they made a discipline complaint. | This privilege does not apply if a person repeats their statement outside of Parliament or the court or regulatory process. It also does not apply if a person tells someone they made a discipline complaint. | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. | This defence also allows the fair and accurate reporting of court proceedings in the media, such as newspaper reports of a trial. | ||
3. | ===3. Qualified privilege=== | ||
This defence is where remarks that may otherwise be defamatory were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defence of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it. | This defence is where remarks that may otherwise be defamatory were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. Say a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as a reference and that employer calls you for a reference. You say, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your statement is not made to more people than necessary, then the defence of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had a legitimate interest in hearing it. | ||
4. | ===4. Fair comment=== | ||
We all are free to comment—even harshly—about issues of public interest, as long as we are clear that our comments are: | We all are free to comment—even harshly—about issues of public interest, as long as we are clear that our comments are: | ||
*statements of opinion, not fact. | |||
*based on facts that can be proven. | |||
*not made maliciously. | |||
For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist may have the defence of fair comment. | For example, a newspaper columnist may write that a Member of Parliament (an MP) says he supports equality and equal rights, but he opposes same-sex marriages. The columnist writes that the MP is hypocritical. If the MP sues the columnist for defamation, the columnist may have the defence of fair comment. | ||
5. | ===5. Responsible communication on matters of public interest=== | ||
In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations—even if not true—if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defence, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if: | In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations—even if not true—if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defence, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if: | ||
*the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and | |||
*the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story. | |||
The court defined journalist widely to include bloggers and anyone else publishing material of public interest in any medium. | The court defined journalist widely to include bloggers and anyone else publishing material of public interest in any medium. | ||
What effect does an apology have? | ==What effect does an apology have?== | ||
A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away. | |||
Summary | ==Summary== | ||
The law of defamation protects your reputation against false statements. If a person makes a false statement to someone and it hurts your reputation, you can sue the person who made the false statement for damages. But because of other competing rights in our society, such as free speech and fair comment, you will not always win. | |||