What Is A Defamatory Communication

Defamation is the act of spreading false information about an individual or institution, which ultimately hurts their character and reputation (Gibson). The law of defamation was enacted to ensure that anyone who are upset by false claims made about them by others can take legal action against the offenders and have their honor preserved. Slander and libel are examples of defamation. Spoken defamatory statements constitute slander. Libel, on the other hand, refers to words and images intended to defame a person or organization and published in writing or print, as well as transmitted on radio, film, or television. Those targeted by defamatory information end up being scorned, belittled, ridiculed, hated and at times held in contempt by others. The self-esteem of such people is likely to be lowered by the false information communicated about them (HG. Org Legal Resources)

Laws regarding defamation from state to state but any person seeking to make a claim must provide evidence that the statement was defamatory. However, there are instances when the proof is not required as the states recognize that certain statements are defamatory. These make include; alleging that a person is infected by a disease that is transmitted sexually, making allegations that affect a person’s professional standing or trade negatively, claiming that a person is engaged in criminal activity or deeming an unmarried person unchaste. Before bringing a defamation lawsuit on a person, it must get established that; the statements got distributed to other people other than the one making a claim, it has enough information such that the plaintiff can get identified and that it brought harm to the reputation of the plaintiff in some way. When making a claim, the plaintiff must also prove that there was negligence on the part of the defendant in doing or failing to do something. Also, the allegations made by the person facing the lawsuit must be false (Legal Resource Centre).

In any democratic country, freedom of expression is a foundation stone of democracy. For a long time, however, there has been recognized that the defamation law conflicts with freedom of speech. The line between the freedom to criticize a person or entity and damaging there honor is in most cases not clear. In sharing their research work bloggers, journalist, filmmakers and artists shine light practices that influential individuals, governments, and businesses around the globe engage it. In so doing, they are required to be very accurate regarding the information they publish to ensure compliance with both state and federal privacy laws. For this reason, they may be necessary to enlist the services of legal personnel who review their articles before they get published to avoid any legal liability that may arise from such publications. The services may be too costly for a person who is just starting off, and they may find themselves engraved in controversies that may be the end of their career. It is therefore prudent to say that the law on defamation infringes on the freedom of expression of persons.

Freedom of expression should ensure that a person can air their opinion without interference. It should give one the right to seek for information, receive and use it without fear of being sued (McClennen). The invention of defamation was so as it could assist people to have the ability to face the world. It aims at protecting the reputation of people and ensuring that their self-esteem does not get lowered by the damning publications that may get made of them that are unjust and untrue. The laws on defamation usually interfere with people’s right to freedom of expression while also that there is public order and that interests of the public get protected. Due to the laws people are usually restrained and cannot say or what they think if whatever they are writing or speaking is not correct (McClennen). Although these laws are designed to protect people from losing their honor due to untrue information said or written about them, some influential people may abuse it to ensure that the criticism directed towards them and public debates regarding their actions are kept minimal.

In many instances, people say and write statements that are defamatory. However, reports that may be incredibly defamatory may go unquestioned while comments that are harmless may bring about severe legal battles. For this reason, it is not easy to predict when one is going to get accused of defamation. The unpredictability of these instances limits the freedom of speech. The writers end up leaving out any information that may be deemed offensive from their articles leading to information that is inconclusive and hence poor reporting. They do this in a bid to ensure that they are safe rather than sorry and that is why they at times enlist the help of lawyers to interpret for them the complex laws of defamation.

Price, Steven argues that no matter how careful one is as a writer some malicious people may sue out of revenge, spite, be seen to defend their reputation or to cause financial pain to the person they want to petition. Even when they know the writer is right, they may prosecute to try to force the defendant to react. Defamations cases are sporadic, but when they occur, they can be very costly, stressful and technical and hence the need to avoid or ensure that they are kept minimal. One needs to be aware of what they are saying or publishing. People will not only be liable for what they write but also what others read between the lines. At times one may not have meant what others interpret from a text and hence the need to take caution. To ascertain that there is no misunderstanding of one’s statements, it is prudent that the writer always does with all the ambiguity as this is what leads to misinterpretations. Publishing an article written by another can also lead to legal liability in regards to defamation.

In a defamation claim, the truth is an essential way of the defending oneself. When saying something, it is very advisable that one says what they can prove. Ensuring that a writer has enough evidence to present to the court in case they get sued will protect them from liabilities. The evidence should also be compelling and from sources that are credible and not some made up the truth. In instances where one is using documents as evidence, there should be a person who can authenticate them. When making allegations about a person, it is advisable that one uses the exact language used in courts as this does away with vagueness. In making arguments that one is not sure of being open to the audience about the fact that you are not creating any allegations as you don’t know about them could protect a person proving information on media from defamation claims (Price).

Although the above remedies taken by writers and publishers could protect themselves from facing defamation lawsuits, there need to make reforms on the laws to reduce the cases of this manner brought before the courts. Gibson, Judith suggests that there should be separate remedies for blog and “non-media” publications. She argues that there should be Global Network Initiative where defamatory complaints first go through a complaints procedure established by the internet service providers. The extensive use of the internet at the present means that many issues arise from the internet publication which does not get handled before the cases get brought to the courts. The may case cause a drag in the court of law as many cases take a long time to get a ruling. Having this kind of reform will ensure that only those cases that meet a set threshold proceed to the court and eliminate any malicious lawsuits.

Setting up of a specialist ”freedom of speech” court at the federal level could also ensure that only legitimate cases get heard and that the rights to freedom of expression get protected. At times judges may have different opinions and rulings on the same defamation cases. The differences arise due to the complexities in the defamation laws and having a court that specializes on the freedom of speech and defamation cases could ensure that proper interpretations get made to protect people’s rights as well as their reputations.

In conclusion, the ease of access to the internet has created a lot of forums where people can air their opinion. The implication of this is that these views can be read and exposed to millions of interpretations. As a result, defamations cases have been on the rise making it difficult to strike a balance between the freedom of expression and protection of the reputation and honor of individuals and entities. The cases put a lot of pressure on the courts and hence the need for reforms. While long-term improvements are necessary, short-term ones like having alternative ways of handling disputes and coming up with specialist courts should be put in place currently. Media personalities reporting and publishing on different matters should ensure that the information they provide is not only true and accurate but can also the authenticated. In the instance where the writer is not sure of the authenticity of information, they should leave it out or seek clarification first. While the media is the watchdog of our society and should be allowed to report on issues that affect people with less pressure, it is uncalled for to publish untrue statements that may bring harm to another person. For this reason, therefore, it is sensible to say that media reporting should be allowed some level of freedom as long as it does not destroy the reputation of people and firms. To ensure this regulated defamation laws should be present.

Works cited

Gibson, Judith. ”Balancing Reputation Rights And Freedom Of Speech In The 21St Century: Part 2 – Judith Gibson.“ https://inforrm.org/2011/02/24/balancing-reputation-rights-and-freedom-of-speech-in-the-21st-century-part-2-judith-gibson/.

HG. Org Legal Resources. Hg.Org, 2017, https://www.hg.org/defamation.html.

McClennen, Sophia A, and Alexandra Schultheis Moore. The Routledge Companion To Literature And Human Rights.

Price, Steven. ”Defamation | Media Law Journal.“ Medialawjournal.Co.Nz, 2017, http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273.

Legal Resource Centre. ”What Is A Defamatory Communication? - Defamation Removal Law.“ Defamationremovallaw.Com, 2017, https://www.defamationremovallaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/what-is-a-defamatory-communication/.