Editing Defamation (section)

====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>