Editing Defamation (section)

====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.