You are a dick / Are you a dick?

Steve

I'm curious, in the context of the defamation act 2009, what your opinions are on the definition of a "statement".

Actionable defamation requires a statement as one of the ingredients, e.g.:

"You are a dick" is a statement

"Are you a dick?" (indulge me for the sake of argument) is a question yet infers the same intent to lower the recipients standing amongst members of society as the (grammatical) statement does.

The definition of a 'statement' in the act is pretty broad and covers such things as images and gestures, however, does anyone know if the latter above would qualify?

Steve

Steve wrote: »

I'm curious, in the context of the defamation act 2009, what your opinions are on the definition of a "statement".

Actionable defamation requires a statement as one of the ingredients, e.g.:

"You are a dick" is a statement

"Are you a dick?" (indulge me for the sake of argument) is a question yet infers the same intent to lower the recipients standing amongst members of society as the (grammatical) statement does.

The definition of a 'statement' in the act is pretty broad and covers such things as images and gestures, however, does anyone know if the latter above would qualify?

This is pretty much the absolute standard answer to questions about whether a statement is defamatory: it depends on the context.

Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

This is pretty much the absolute standard answer to questions about whether a statement is defamatory: it depends on the context.

Is there any precedent you know of?

Pretend the above went before a Judge in hypothetical land.. a statement includes, amongst other things, "any other method of signifying meaning" which in context includes images and gestures and such.

My question remains: does anyone think that "are you a dick?" would stand up as much as "you are a dick" in the context of the legal definition?

blueythebear

Steve wrote: »

I'm curious, in the context of the defamation act 2009, what your opinions are on the definition of a "statement".

Actionable defamation requires a statement as one of the ingredients, e.g.:

"You are a dick" is a statement

"Are you a dick?" (indulge me for the sake of argument) is a question yet infers the same intent to lower the recipients standing amongst members of society as the (grammatical) statement does.

The definition of a 'statement' in the act is pretty broad and covers such things as images and gestures, however, does anyone know if the latter above would qualify?

As has been said already, it very much depends on the context. On an aside, even calling someone a dick outright is not defamatory as you are just abusing them. There was a very old case cited as an authority that common abuse is not defamatory where the plaintiff had been called a "f***ing Dutchman". The Statement made must be one that would lower that person in the eye of right thinking members of society.

To call someone a "f***ing paedophile" would be defamatory if untrue. The paedophile part would be defamatory but the cursing would not. However, the abusive language would probably increase any award of damages for the abusive nature of the defamatory statement.

usernamegoes

Steve wrote: »

I'm curious, in the context of the defamation act 2009, what your opinions are on the definition of a "statement".

Actionable defamation requires a statement as one of the ingredients, e.g.:

"You are a dick" is a statement

"Are you a dick?" (indulge me for the sake of argument) is a question yet infers the same intent to lower the recipients standing amongst members of society as the (grammatical) statement does.

The definition of a 'statement' in the act is pretty broad and covers such things as images and gestures, however, does anyone know if the latter above would qualify?

Maybe it's a questions of fact referring to context that the jury would decide.

On a broad point I suppose it could be argued that "Are you a dick?" is a statement and not an interrogatory as it is, by its very nature, surely a rhetorical question. If it is not meant to be answered surely it is, for all intents and purposes, a statement rather than a question.

blueythebear

Steve wrote: »

Is there any precedent you know of?

Pretend the above went before a Judge in hypothetical land.. a statement includes, amongst other things, "any other method of signifying meaning" which in context includes images and gestures and such.

My question remains: does anyone think that "are you a dick?" would stand up as much as "you are a dick" in the context of the legal definition?

I can't think of any precedent offhand but the issue is not the fact that you are phrasing it as a question, but the fact that it is likely to be seen effectively as a statement so context comes into it hugely.

One famous precedent that illustrates the point (albeit slightly differently) is the Reynolds v Malocco case. Malocco was the company that ran a magazine that said that the Plaintiff was a gay man. He sued for defamation and the magazine claimed that by gay they meant happy. The judge did not buy that and said that the implication was clear, that he was a homosexual.

What was vital to the judge was the way that society would view the defamatory statement as opposed to the intention or way it was phrased. So, if your question would be likely ot be seen as a defamatory statement, it doesn't matter how if it is phrased as a quesiton because a question can signify the required meaning for it to constitute defamation.

Steve

Yeah, I was using the "you are a dick" example as it's the boards prime directive and didn't want to make this specific in any way.

For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the context is actionable

My question is on how it's published - i.e. as a 'question' or a 'statement'. does it make a difference?

Tom Young

I believe this would fall into the category of vulgar abuse rather than Defamation, then again, as people said above it depends on the situation and context.