Editing Defamation (section)

===Common law===
====Background====
Modern defamation in common law jurisdictions are historically derived from [[English defamation law]]. English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals (under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation<ref name="indiana1">{{cite journal|url=http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=fclj |first1=Douglas W. |last1=Vick |first2=Linda |last2=Macpherson|title=An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law |journal=Federal Communications Law Journal |issue=3 |volume= 49|date=1 April 1997 |access-date=12 August 2015}}</ref><ref name="google1">{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/lawtortsatreati00salmgoog |page=[https://archive.org/details/lawtortsatreati00salmgoog/page/n417 385] |quote=english law individual corporation defamation. |title=The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries |author= John William Salmond |publisher=Stevens and Haynes |year=1907 |access-date=15 March 2013}}</ref><ref name="lexology1">{{cite web|first=Sam|last=Howard |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=405621d2-ac5c-48b4-92d0-b161421b7476 |title=Defamation of corporate entities in England |publisher=Lexology |date= 15 March 2007|access-date=15 March 2013}}</ref>) in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them.

====Overview====
In contemporary [[common law]] jurisdictions, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed.<ref>False:
* Ron Hankin, ''Navigating the Legal Minefield of Private Investigations: A Career-Saving Guide for Private Investigators, Detectives, And Security Police'', Looseleaf Law Publications, 2008, p. 59. "There are five essential elements to defamation: (1) The accusation is false; and (2) it impeaches the subject's character; and (3) it is published to a third person; and (4) it damages the reputation of the subject; and (5) that the accusation is done intentionally or with fault such as wanton disregard of facts."
* Roger LeRoy Miller, Gaylord A. Jentz, ''Business Law Today: The Essentials'', Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 115. "In other words, making a negative statement about another person is not defamation unless the statement is false and represents something as a fact (for example, 'Vladik cheats on his taxes') rather than a personal opinion (for example, 'Vladik is a jerk')."
* Michael G. Parkinson, L. Marie Parkinson, ''Law for advertising, broadcasting, journalism, and public relations'', Routledge, 2006, p. 273. "Simplifying a very complicated decision, the court said that because the plaintiff must prove a statement is false in order to win an action in defamation, it is impossible to win an action in defamation if the statement, by its very nature, cannot be proven false."
* Edward Lee Lamoureux, Steven L. Baron, Claire Stewart, ''Intellectual property law and interactive media: free for a fee'', Peter Lang, 2009, p. 190. "A statement can only be defamatory if it is false; therefore true statements of fact about others, regardless of the damage rendered, are not defamatory (although such comments might represent other sorts of privacy or hate speech violations). Defamation may occur when one party (the eventual defendant if a case goes forward) writes or says something that is false about a second party (plaintiff) such that some third party 'receives' the communication, and the communication of false information damages the plaintiff".</ref> Some common law jurisdictions distinguish between spoken defamation, called ''slander'', and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called ''libel''.<ref>Linda L. Edwards, J. Stanley Edwards, Patricia Kirtley Wells, ''Tort Law for Legal Assistants'', Cengage Learning, 2008, p. 390. "Libel refers to written defamatory statements; slander refers to oral statements. Libel encompasses communications occurring in 'physical form'... defamatory statements on records and computer tapes are considered libel rather than slander."</ref> 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, such as spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures or the like, then it is slander. In contrast, libel encompasses defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than spoken words or gestures.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel | title = Libel | access-date = 8 November 2010 | year = 2010}}</ref>{{efn|In recent times, internet publications such as defamatory comments on social media can also constitute libel}} 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.<ref name="auto">{{cite journal | title = Trial of john peter zenger for libel | journal = The CQ Researcher | year = 1981 | first = R | last = Benenson| url = http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/21213343  | access-date = 8 November 2010}}</ref> The highest award in an American defamation case, at US$222.7&nbsp;million was rendered in 1997 against [[Dow Jones & Company|Dow Jones]] in favour of MMAR Group Inc;<ref>{{cite news|last=Peterson |first=Iver |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/21/business/firm-awarded-222.7-million-in-a-libel-suit-vs-dow-jones.html |title=Firm Awarded $222.7 Million in a Libel Suit Vs. Dow Jones |location=Houston |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=21 March 1997 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131115060422/http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/21/business/firm-awarded-222.7-million-in-a-libel-suit-vs-dow-jones.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm |archive-date=15 November 2013 |url-status=unfit |access-date=4 June 2022}}</ref>{{cbignore}} however, the verdict was dismissed in 1999 amid allegations that MMAR failed to disclose audiotapes made by its employees.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://amarillo.com/stories/080699/tex_LD0671.001.shtml |title=Judge dismisses verdict in Dow Jones libel suit |location=Amarillo |publisher=Amarillo.com |date=6 August 1999 |access-date=15 May 2013}}</ref>

In common law jurisdictions, civil lawsuits alleging defamation have frequently been used by both private businesses and governments to suppress and censor criticism. A notable example of such lawsuits being used to suppress political criticism of a government is the use of defamation claims by politicians in Singapore's ruling [[People's Action Party]] to harass and suppress opposition leaders such as [[J. B. Jeyaretnam]].<ref name="WP - 1991 to 2000">{{cite web |url=http://www.wp.org.sg/party/history/1991_2000.htm |title=History of the Workers' Party: 1991 to 2000 |access-date=19 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050206233726/http://www.wp.org.sg/party/history/1991_2000.htm |archive-date=6 February 2005 |url-status = dead}}</ref><ref name="Death of Singaporean maverick">{{cite news |last1=Burton |first1=John |title=Death of Singaporean maverick |url=https://www.ft.com/content/f7aa79f2-8f00-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/f7aa79f2-8f00-11dd-946c-0000779fd18c |archive-date=10 December 2022 |url-access=subscription |access-date=19 November 2021 |work=Financial Times |date=30 September 2008}}</ref><ref name="Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada">{{cite web |title=J. B. Jeyaretnam |date=26 March 2012 |url=https://www.lrwc.org/j-b-jeyaretnam/ |website=Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada |access-date=1 April 2020 |df=dmy-all |archive-date=28 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928122126/https://www.lrwc.org/j-b-jeyaretnam/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Cameron Sim, [https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol20/iss2/3 The Singapore Chill: Political Defamation and the Normalization of a Statist Rule of Law], 20 [[Washington International Law Journal|Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal]] 319 (2011).</ref><ref>[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/high-court-awards-pm-lee-210000-in-damages-in-defamation-suits-against-toc High Court awards PM Lee $210,000 in damages in defamation suits against TOC editor Terry Xu and article author] (''[[Straits Times|The Straits Times]])'' 1 September 2021</ref> Over the first few decades of the twenty first century, the phenomenon of [[Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation|strategic lawsuits against public participation]] has gained prominence in many common law jurisdictions outside Singapore as activists, journalists, critics of corporations, political leaders, and public figures are increasingly targeted with vexatious defamation litigation.<ref name="onthemedia_01">{{cite web|url=http://www.onthemedia.org/2010/apr/02/slapp-back/transcript/|title=SLAPP Back: Transcript|date=2 April 2010|website=[[On The Media]]|publisher=[[WNYC]] ([[National Public Radio]], [[PBS]])|first=Nazanin|last=Rafsanjani|access-date=29 June 2011|archive-date=21 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521082813/http://www.onthemedia.org/2010/apr/02/slapp-back/transcript/|url-status=dead}}</ref> As a result, [[Tort reform#Defamation law|tort reform measures]] have been enacted in various jurisdictions; the ''[[California Code of Civil Procedure]]'' and Ontario's ''Protection of Public Participation Act'' do so by enabling defendants to make a [[special motion to strike]] or dismiss during which [[Discovery (law)|discovery]] is suspended and which, if successful, would terminate the lawsuit and allow the party to recover its legal costs from the plaintiff.<ref>{{CalCCP|425.16|}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-41/session-1/bill-52|title=Protection of Public Participation Act, 2015|website=Legislative Assembly of Ontario|language=en|access-date=27 March 2020}}</ref>

====Defences====
There are a variety of defences to defamation claims in common law jurisdictions.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Legal%20Guide_defamation.pdf|first= Mayer|last= Brown|title= A4ID Defamation Guide|publisher= Advocates for International Development|year= 2013|access-date= 14 August 2013|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140209044821/http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Legal%20Guide_defamation.pdf|archive-date= 9 February 2014}}</ref> The two most fundamental defences arise from the doctrine in common law jurisdictions that only a false statement of fact (as opposed to opinion) can be defamatory. This doctrine gives rise to two separate but related defences: opinion and truth. Statements of opinion cannot be regarded as defamatory as they are inherently non-falsifiable.{{efn|While this holds true in the majority of common law jurisdictions, particularly in the Commonwealth, a number of common law jurisdictions no longer recognise any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The Supreme Court of the United States, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an [[opinion privilege]].<ref>''[[Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.]]'', 497 U.S. 1 (1990)</ref>}} Where a statement has been shown to be one of fact rather than opinion, the most common defence in common law jurisdictions is that of truth. Proving the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement is always a valid defence.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Franklin|first1=Mark A.|title=The Origins and Constitutionality of Limitations on Truth as a Defense in Tort Law|journal=Stanford Law Review|date=1963|volume=16|issue=4|pages=789–848|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stflr16&div=59&id=&page=|access-date=31 October 2017|doi=10.2307/1227028|jstor=1227028|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Where a statement is partially true, certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth have provided by statute that the defence "shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges".<ref name=PHA2014/> Similarly, the American doctrine of [[substantial truth]] provides that a statement is not defamatory if it has "slight inaccuracies of expression" but is otherwise true.<ref>''[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1281195/lathan-v-journal-co/ Lathan v. Journal Co.]'', 30 Wis.2d 146, 158, 140 N.W.2d 417, 423 (1966).</ref> Since a statement can only be defamatory if it harms another person's reputation, another defence tied to the ability of a statement to be defamatory is to demonstrate that, regardless of whether the statement is true or is a statement of fact, it does not actually harm someone's reputation.

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 figure]]s. Public interest is generally not "what the public is interested in", but rather "what is in the interest of the public".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=61/610d76026e388dc5e6c88e6a8ddcef8d#public%20interest|title=Legal dictionary|access-date=24 November 2006|work=findlaw.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canona650.com|title=Legal Terms|access-date=22 October 2004|publisher=legal.org|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080422071753/http://www.canona650.com/|archive-date=22 April 2008}}</ref>

Other defences recognised in one or more common law jurisdictions include:<ref name="hobartlegal.org.au">{{cite web |title=Equity and Rights in Society, Defamation Defences |url=https://www.hobartlegal.org.au/handbook/rights-disability-and-access/defamation/defences/ |website=Hobart Community Legal Service Inc. |access-date=2 March 2019 |date=20 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Opinion and Fair Comment Privileges|url=http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges|website=Digital Media Law Project|access-date=31 October 2017}}</ref>
* Privilege: A circumstance that justifies or excuses an act that would otherwise constitute a tort on the ground that it stemmed from a recognised interest of social importance, provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted. While some privileges have long been recognised, courts may create a new privilege for particular circumstances – privilege as an affirmative defence is a potentially ever-evolving doctrine. Such newly created or circumstantially recognised privileges are referred to as residual justification privileges. There are two types of privilege in common law jurisdictions:
** {{anchor|Absolute privilege}}<!-- [[Absolute privilege]] redirects here-->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]]: A more limited, or 'qualified', form of privilege may be available to journalists as a defence 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.
* [[Mistake of fact]]: 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.
* Mere vulgar abuse: An insult that is not necessarily defamatory if 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]]: Statements 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 [[Soundness|logically unsound]]; if a [[reasonable person]] could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
* [[Consent]]: In rare cases, a defendant can argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
* [[Innocent dissemination]]: A [[defendant]] is not liable if they 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 defence can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to [[negligence]].
* Incapability of further defamation: Historically, it was a defence at common law that 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 defence was that the person had such a bad [[reputation]] before the libel, that no further [[damages|damage]] could possibly have been caused by the making of the statement.<ref>{{cite web |title=Is Your Reputation So Bad You Cannot Be Defamed? |url=https://www.hodgsonruss.com/newsroom-publications-12311.html |website=Hodgson Russ LLP |access-date=7 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930084631/https://www.hodgsonruss.com/newsroom-publications-12311.html |archive-date=2020-09-30 |date=9 June 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[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.<ref>''[[Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson]]''</ref>
* 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.

==== Insurance ====
Media liability or defamation insurance is often purchased by publishers and journalists to cover potential damage awards from libel lawsuits.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Kurtz |first=Annalyn |date=November 13, 2017 |title=I am a freelance journalist. Do I need to buy liability insurance? |url=https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/journalist-liability-insurance-freelance.php |access-date=2024-11-18 |website=[[Columbia Journalism Review]] |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Czajkowski |first=Elise |title=Why media liability insurance is key to making sure your newsroom continues to exist |url=https://inn.org/research/case-studies/why-media-liability-insurance-is-key-to-making-sure-your-newsroom-continues-to-exist/ |access-date=2024-11-18 |website=[[Institute for Nonprofit News]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Oliver |first=Laura |date=January 25, 2023 |title=Reporters Shield: New Program Launches to Help Investigative Reporters Tackle Lawsuits |url=https://gijn.org/stories/reporters-shield-new-program-launches-to-help-investigative-reporters-tackle-lawsuits/ |access-date=2024-11-18 |website=[[Global Investigative Journalism Network]] |language=en-US}}</ref> Roughly 3/4 of all money spent on claims by liability insurers goes to lawyers and only 1/4 goes to settlements or judgments, according to one estimate from Michelle Worrall Tilton of Media Risk Consultants.<ref name=":1" /> Some advise buying worldwide coverage that offers defense against cases regardless of where in the world they are filed, since a compainant can [[Libel tourism|look for a more favorable jurisdiction]] to file their claim.<ref name=":1" /> [[Investigative journalism]] usually requires higher insurance premiums, with some plans not covering investigative work altogether.<ref name=":3" />

====Defamation per se====
Many common law jurisdictions recognise that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory ''per se'', such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel-slander-per-se.shtml |title=Dancing With Lawyers |publisher=Dancing With Lawyers |access-date=7 September 2010}}</ref> In an action for defamation ''[[Illegal per se|per se]]'', the law recognises that certain false statements are so damaging that they create a presumption of injury to the plaintiff's reputation, allowing a defamation case to proceed to verdict with no actual proof of damages. Although laws vary by state, and not all jurisdictions recognise defamation ''per se'', there are four general categories of false statement that typically support a ''per se'' action:<ref name="defperse"/>
# accusing someone of a crime;
# alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease;
# adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and
# imputing serious sexual misconduct.
If the plaintiff proves that such a statement was made and was false, to recover damages the plaintiff need only prove that someone had made the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required. However, to recover full compensation a plaintiff should be prepared to prove actual damages.<ref name="defperse"/>
As with any defamation case, truth remains an absolute defence to defamation ''per se''. This means that even if the statement would be considered defamatory ''per se'' if false, if the defendant establishes that it is in fact true, an action for defamation ''per se'' cannot survive.<ref>{{cite web|title=Defamation|url=http://www.dmlp.org/book/export/html/1813|website=Digital Media Law Project|access-date=31 October 2017}}</ref> The conception of what type of allegation may support an action for defamation per se can evolve with public policy. For example, in May 2012 an appeals court in New York, citing changes in public policy with regard to [[homosexuality]], ruled that describing someone as [[gay]] is not defamation.<ref name=NYGayRuling>{{cite news|title=Label of Gay Is No Longer Defamatory, Court Rules|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyregion/court-rules-calling-someone-gay-is-not-defamatory.html|access-date=3 June 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=31 May 2012|agency=Associated Press}}</ref>

====Variations within common law jurisdictions====
While defamation torts are broadly similar across common law jurisdictions; differences have arisen as a result of diverging case law, statutes and other legislative action, and constitutional concerns{{efn|For instance, [[Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] and the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] provide protection for [[freedom of expression]] which courts must take into account in developing the case law regarding defamation}} specific to individual jurisdictions.

Some jurisdictions have a separate [[tort]] or delict of [[verbal injury|injury]], [[intentional infliction of emotional distress]], involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "[[invasion of privacy]]" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". The tort of harassment created by Singapore's ''Protection from Harassment Act 2014'' is an example of a tort of this type being created by statute.<ref name=PHA2014/> There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "[[misrepresentation]]", involving the making of a statement that is untrue even though not defamatory. Thus a surveyor who states a house is free from risk of flooding has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house relying on this statement. Other increasingly common claims similar to defamation in U.S. law are claims that a famous trademark has been diluted through tarnishment, see generally [[trademark dilution]], "[[Tortious interference|intentional interference with contract]]", and "negligent misrepresentation". In America, for example, the unique tort of [[false light]] protects plaintiffs against statements which are not technically false but are misleading.<ref name="martin">Edward C. Martin. [http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin/AdvancedTorts/falselight.htm "False light"]. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227192826/http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin/AdvancedTorts/falselight.htm |date=27 February 2008 }}. [[Cumberland School of Law]], [[Samford University]]</ref><!-- US-specific? --> Libel and slander both require publication.<ref>50 Am.Jur.2d libel and slander 1–546</ref>

Although laws vary by state; in America, a defamation action typically requires that a plaintiff claiming defamation prove that the defendant:
# made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
# shared the statement with a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
# if the defamatory matter is of public concern, acted in a manner which amounted at least to negligence on the part of the defendant; and
# caused damages to the plaintiff.
Additionally, American courts apply special rules in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures, which can be used as a defence. While plaintiff alleging defamation in an American court must usually prove that the statement caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement; where the plaintiff is a celebrity or public official, they must additionally prove that the statement was made with [[actual malice]] (i.e. the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth).<ref>New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/sexton/fall2010/10/index.htm | title = Us political systems | last = Sexton | first = Kevin | year = 2010 | access-date = 8 November 2010 | archive-date = 18 February 2011 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110218044657/http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/sexton/fall2010/10/index.htm | url-status = dead }}</ref> 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 an American court, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth (i.e. [[actual malice]]).<ref>''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'', 376 U.S. 254 (1964).</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://stylebook.fredericksburg.com/APtxt/Libel.html|title=Foreword|website=stylebook.fredericksburg.com|access-date=2017-03-30|archive-date=1 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210301050633/http://stylebook.fredericksburg.com/APtxt/Libel.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> An early example of libel is the case of [[John Peter Zenger]] in 1735. Zenger was hired to publish the ''New York Weekly Journal''. When he printed another man's article criticising [[William Cosby]], the [[Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies|royal governor]] of [[Province of New York|Colonial New York]], Zenger was accused of [[seditious libel]].<ref name="auto"/> 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 [[Supreme Court of the United States]] overruled a state court in [[Alabama]] that had found ''The New York Times'' guilty of libel for printing an advertisement that criticised Alabama officials for mistreating student [[civil rights]] activists. Even though some of what ''The Times'' printed was false, the court ruled in its favour, saying that libel of a public official requires proof of [[actual malice]], which was defined as a "knowing or reckless disregard for the truth".<ref>{{cite book | last1 = Patterson | first1 = T | title = The American Democracy | publisher = New York: McGraw-Hill | year = 2009 }}</ref>

Many jurisdictions within the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] (e.g. Singapore,<ref name=DA1957/> Ontario,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ontario.ca/laws/view|title=Law Document English View|date=24 July 2014|website=Ontario.ca}}</ref> and the United Kingdom<ref>[[Defamation Act 1952]]</ref>) have enacted legislation to:
* Codify the defences of [[fair comment]] and qualified privilege
* Provide that, while most instances of slander continue to require special damage to be proved (i.e. prove that pecuniary loss was caused by the defamatory statement), instances such as slander of title shall not
* Clarify that broadcast statements (including those that are only broadcast in spoken form) constitute libel rather than slander.
Libel law in England and Wales was overhauled even further by the ''[[Defamation Act 2013]]''.

Defamation in [[Tort law in India|Indian tort law]] largely resembles that of [[England and Wales]]. Indian courts have endorsed<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-10-19|title=Defamation under Law of Torts|url=https://lawpage.in/torts/defamation_tort|access-date=2021-01-02|website=LawPage.In|language=en|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814222256/https://lawpage.in/torts/defamation_tort|url-status=dead}}</ref> the defences of absolute<ref>''Pukhraj v State of Rajasthan'' [1973] SCC (Cri) 944.</ref> and qualified privilege,<ref>''Rustom K. Karanjia and Anr v Krishnaraj M.D. Thackersey and Ors.'' (1970) 72 BOMLR 94.</ref> fair comment,<ref>''Ram Jethmalani Vs. Subramaniam Swamy'' 2006 (87) DRJ 603.</ref> and justification.<ref>''Santosh Tewari and Ors V State of U.P. and Anr'' 1996 (20) ACR 808.</ref> While statutory law in the United Kingdom provides that, if the defendant is only successful in proving the truth of some of the several charges against him, the defence of justification might still be available if the charges not proved do not materially injure the reputation,<ref>Defamation Act, 1952 (England).</ref> there is no corresponding provision in India, though it is likely that Indian courts would treat this principle as persuasive precedent.<ref name="analysis">{{citation|author=Ayesha|title=The Tort of Defamation: An Analysis of the Law in India and the United Kingdom|date=6 October 2010|url=http://jurisonline.in/2010/10/the-tort-of-defamation-an-analysis-of-the-law-in-india-and-the-united-kingdom/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111001185414/http://jurisonline.in/2010/10/the-tort-of-defamation-an-analysis-of-the-law-in-india-and-the-united-kingdom/|archive-date=1 October 2011|df=dmy-all}}.</ref> Recently, incidents of defamation in relation to public figures have attracted public attention.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.mylaw.net/Article/Defamation_law_in_India/?past=Article%20List#.Uc1SYfkwdNM,Samarjit |title=Pattnaik, Aju John 'Defamation Law in India'2 March 2013 |access-date=16 January 2022 |archive-date=23 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150223185322/http://www.mylaw.net/Article/Defamation_law_in_India/?past=Article%20List#.Uc1SYfkwdNM,Samarjit |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The origins of U.S. defamation law pre-date the [[American Revolution]].{{efn|one famous 1734 case involving [[John Peter Zenger]] sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defence against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of [[jury nullification]], and not a case where the defence acquitted itself as a matter of law, as before the Zenger case defamation law had not provided the defence of truth.<ref>{{cite web|title=The Trial of John Peter Zenger|url=https://www.nps.gov/feha/learn/historyculture/the-trial-of-john-peter-zenger.htm|website=National Park Service|access-date=31 October 2017|date=26 February 2015}}</ref>}} Though the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment of the American Constitution]] was designed to protect freedom of the press, it was primarily envisioned to prevent censorship by the state rather than defamation suits; thus, for most of American history, the [[U.S. Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] did not interpret the First Amendment as applying to libel cases involving media defendants. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case ''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'' dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the country by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice{{snd}}that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not".<ref>{{cite web|title=New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 84 S. Ct. 710, 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1964)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10183527771703896207|website=Google Scholar|access-date=31 October 2017}}</ref> Later the Supreme Court held that statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true are protected from libel claims,<ref>{{cite web|title=Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=5069891851949874011|website=Google Scholar}}</ref> as are statements of opinion relating to matters of public concern that do not contain a provably false factual connotation.<ref>{{cite web|title=Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7582860956470530700|website=Google Scholar}}</ref> Subsequent state and federal cases have addressed defamation law and the Internet.<ref>{{cite web|title=Court Cases|url=https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.html|website=Defamation and the Internet|access-date=31 October 2017}}</ref>

American defamation law is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth countries]]. A comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander under American law is difficult, as the definition differs between different states and is further affected by federal law.<ref>{{cite web|title=Defamation FAQs|url=http://www.medialaw.org/topics-page/defamation-faqs|website=Media Law Resource Center|access-date=31 October 2017|archive-date=9 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210909002451/http://medialaw.org/topics-page/defamation-faqs|url-status=dead}}</ref> Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together, merging the concepts into a single defamation law.<ref name="defperse">{{cite web|last1=Bossary|first1=Andrew|title=Defamation Per Se: Be Prepared to Plead (and Prove!) Actual Damages|url=https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/spring2014-0513-defamation-prepare-plead-prove-actual-damages.html|website=American Bar Association|access-date=31 October 2017|date=3 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171031015039/https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/businesstorts/articles/spring2014-0513-defamation-prepare-plead-prove-actual-damages.html|archive-date=31 October 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>

New Zealand received English law with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. The current Act is the ''Defamation Act 1992'' which came into force on 1 February 1993 and repealed the ''Defamation Act 1954''.<ref>[http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/whole.html ''Defamation Act 1992'' New Zealand] as at 1 March 2017</ref> New Zealand law allows for the following remedies in an action for defamation: compensatory damages; an injunction to stop further publication; a correction or a retraction; and in certain cases, punitive damages. Section 28 of the Act allows for punitive damages only when a there is a flagrant disregard of the rights of the person defamed. As the law assumes that an individual suffers loss if a statement is defamatory, there is no need to prove that specific damage or loss has occurred. However, Section 6 of the Act allows for a defamation action brought by a corporate body to proceed only when the body corporate alleges and proves that the publication of the defamation has caused or is likely to cause pecuniary loss to that body corporate.

As is the case for most [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] jurisdictions, Canada follows English law on defamation issues (except in [[Quebec]] where the private law is derived from French civil law). In common law provinces and territories, defamation covers any communication that tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of ordinary members of the public.<ref>''Murphy v. LaMarsh'' (1970), 73 W.W.R. 114</ref> Probably true statements are not excluded, nor are political opinions. Intent is always presumed, and it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to defame. In ''[[Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto]]'' (1995), the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] rejected the ''actual malice'' test adopted in the US case ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan''. Once a claim has been made, the defendant may avail themselves of a defence of justification (the truth), fair comment, responsible communication,<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Grant v. Torstar Corp.|link=|year=2009|court=scc|num=61|format=|pinpoint=|parallelcite=[2009] 3 SCR 640|date=2009-12-22|courtname=auto|juris=}}</ref> or privilege. Publishers of defamatory comments may also use the defence of innocent dissemination where they had no knowledge of the nature of the statement, it was not brought to their attention, and they were not negligent.<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Astley v. Verdun|link=|year=2011|court=onsc|num=3651|format=|pinpoint=|parallelcite=|date=2011-06-14|courtname=auto|juris=}}</ref><ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Farallon Mining Ltd. v. Arnold|link=|year=2011|court=bcsc|num=1532|format=|pinpoint=|parallelcite=|date=2011-11-10|courtname=auto|juris=}}</ref>

====Corporate defamation====
Common law jurisdictions vary as to whether they permit corporate plaintiffs in defamation actions. Under contemporary Australian law, private corporations are denied the right to sue for defamation, with an exception for small businesses (corporations with less than 10 employees and no subsidiaries); this rule was introduced by the state of New South Wales in 2003, and then adopted nationwide in 2006.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Coe |first=Peter |date=March 2021 |title=An analysis of three distinct approaches to using defamation to protect corporate reputation from Australia, England and Wales, and Canada |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/abs/an-analysis-of-three-distinct-approaches-to-using-defamation-to-protect-corporate-reputation-from-australia-england-and-wales-and-canada/F7B6A48FCA80708CAE1DFB551A992B6C |journal=Legal Studies |language=en |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=111–129 |doi=10.1017/lst.2020.38 |issn=0261-3875}}</ref> By contrast, Canadian law grants private corporations substantially the same right to sue for defamation as individuals possess.<ref name=":0" /> Since 2013, English law charts a middle course, allowing private corporations to sue for defamation, but requiring them to prove that the defamation caused both serious harm and serious financial loss, which individual plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate.<ref name=":0" />