Defamation

hullaballoo wrote: »

A defamatory statement does not have to be false. A true statement can be defamatory.

While I can be defamatory can it lead to censure in the eyes of the law? This says


An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients:

- it must be published,
- it must refer to the complainant and
- it must be false.

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/

The use of social media has led to increased cases defamation being brought to the attention of the courts. Some people just don't realize that something as simple as lashing out at an ex can land you in deep trouble. every like and comment friends add just bury you deeper.

However, unless you or the person who defamed you is well off, you're unlikely to get someone in the legal industry who will be willing to march a case into court for you.

FutureTeashock wrote: »

Mod
Pls play the ball not the man


Know it all Splinter65 gets owned yet again.:o

Sorry I only deal with trolls as Gaelige. How’s that working out for you Teashock?

Ardillaun wrote: »

Could somebody give me an example of a defamatory true statement?

Any statement (weather true or not) which tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society is by definition a defamatory statement.

Ardillaun wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I see a few countries allow such weirdness but that’s not the generally accepted understanding of the word.

100% sure, but rather than quoting Wikipedia which is based on the US legal understanding of the word, I'd refer you to what is probably considered the principle dictionary here, the OED - which will give an idea of the generally accepted understanding here:-

OED wrote:

defame

verb

damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel

In contrast the definition in the principle dictionary in the US Merriam Webster specifically mentions false:-

Merriam Webster wrote:

the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person : the act of defaming another : CALUMNY

There's a reason for the difference, so back to your Wikipedia quote, note the citation for this is from Business Law Today: The Essentials. United States: South-Western Cengage Learning, this is because it is long held in the US that the statement must be false for an action of defamation, an example of this is the US Supreme Court Time Inc vs Hill [1967] 385 US 384 case which is considered a principle authority on the matter in the US and gives some historical insight into the false requirements and defences, to note however is that some states have varying rules on what constitutes defamation.

In Ireland "defamatory statement" and "defamatory" is legally defined as per S2 of the Defamation Act 2009:-

“ defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly

As you can see it is not qualified by the statement being false, that is the definition that counts here in law, any other common understanding of the word is irrelevant.

The tort of defamation in Irish law is simply the publication of a defamatory statement as per S6 of the Act:-

The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

The common misunderstanding here that a statement must be false stems from the fact that in an action for defamation there is a presumption of falsity, however it is a presumption which can be rebutted by the defence of truth where the defendant must show the statement was true, when raised it is not for the plaintiff to prove the statement was false, rather it is for the defendant to prove it was true in all material respects.

So if the defence isn't raised or isn't successfully established a true statement can lead to a successful defamation action.

Thanks for the clarification. Can you give us an example of a legal case where a person who made an allegation known to be true at the time was successfully sued? It would appear that defamation in the British sense would have to be further qualified as true or false and that, effectively, a category exists of ‘allowable’ defamation.

You should get onto Wiki about this. They don’t make this distinction explicit in their discussion of Ireland and even the England one could be clearer. I don’t seem to able to access the OED.

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Let me see if I have this right: a true statement could be found to be defamatory if and only if the defendant did not raise a defence of truth or did not in the eyes of the court successfully prove the truth of the statement in all material aspects?

So, in effect, if not in legal definition, the likelihood is that a defamatory statement is one which is false?

No, as already shown a defamatory statement is one “that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society”, it is not qualified by being false, it is important to note there is a difference between a defamatory statement and an action in tort for defamation, there is a defence of truth to the latter.

You could for example take an action for so called simple conspiracy for a truthful but defamatory statement.

Ardillaun wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. Can you give us an example of a legal case where a person who made an allegation known to be true at the time was successfully sued?

Yes, the original authority for such here is the Irish People's Assurance Society vs City of Dublin Assurance Company Limited [1929] IR 25 Supreme Court case (an old libel case) which held that true statements are actionable for the tort where for example a true statement gives an untrue impression, that position has not changed:-

Irish People's Assurance Society vs City of Dublin Assurance Company Limited wrote:

The figures and words may be correctly printed, but in my opinion if they are so arranged or excerpted as to convey an untrue impression of the financial condition of the company, and it is for a jury to decide whether they do so or not, the company is entitled to recover damages for the injury to its credit. It would be possible by judicial extraction to make almost any document convey the contrary of its real purport, and I hold that in such a case a jury is entitled to decide whether the statement of the extracts is true or not, and that mere accuracy of extraction is not per se conclusive of the truth of the statement made by the collected extracts

There is also the somewhat related ECtHR Guardian News & Media Ltd: re Ahmed vs HM Treasury (2010) All ER D 178 case which shows there can be an action for a defamatory statement when the statements are true which is grounded on an action of confidentiality because for example the right to your reputation is protected by Article 8 of the ECHR, whilst Irish courts are not bound by ECtHR case law, it must nevertheless be judicially noted.

Ardillaun wrote: »

It would appear that defamation in the British sense would have to be further qualified as true or false and that, effectively, a category exists of ‘allowable’ defamation.

You should get onto Wiki about this. They don’t make this distinction explicit in their discussion of Ireland and even the England one could be clearer. I don’t seem to able to access the OED.

Actually no, the law is similar in the UK to here (there is no true/false qualification), however there is an exception, whilst the threshold here is that the statement merely tends to injure, in the UK the statement must be likely to cause serious harm before it can be defamatory.

With regards to true statements the Monson vs Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671 Queens Bench case held a similar position as the 1929 case here:-

Monson vs Tussauds Ltd wrote:

It is not the mere words of a written statement being true, or the accuracy of fact in a model or scene represented which will render it justifiable. The circumstances of time or place may raise such inferences as will render either libellous, but the words may be true and the model exact

More recently the Gulf Oil (Great Britain) Ltd vs Page & Ors [1987]CH 327 English Court of Appeal case held that true statements can be liable for action depending on the circumstances such as an action for conspiracy to injure joined with an action for defamation.

Again, like here could take an action for so called simple conspiracy, or even convicium adversus bonos mores in Scotts law for a truthful but defamatory statement.

There is no point getting onto Wikipedia, the content is edited by users of the page, not by themselves. Take anything on Wikipedia with a pinch of salt, especially when it comes to the law.

I doubt that the word defamation is understood in this sense in Ireland in common non-legal speech by most people.

On the legal side, it is bizarre to me that a true statement could ever be regarded as defamation in the courts.