Analyse and Assess the Pros and Cons of the Libel Defences of Justification and Fair Comment

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Holding: Kelbel's conflicting explanations for Kailyn's injuries did not coincide with testimonies given my medical examiners, Lindsey, Olster, and a neighbor, so the court holds that evidence presented is sufficient for the jury to reach a verdict. The court also concludes

New Yorker Magazine it states that there must be clear intent to tarnish one’s reputation in order for libel tort law to come into effect. This case was very similar in regards that there was enough evidence that suggest there was intent to hurt the reputation of those mentioned in the articles. Also in the case Anderson v. Liberty Lobby it states the plaintiff must be able to prove that there was in fact damage done to one’s reputation and be able to proof to judges that there was actual malice. As with this case, the court of appeals must take in consideration if the ruling can be made in favor of the plaintiff and that if the summary judgement would go in favor of the plaintiff. The judges want to make sure that they are not wasting time and that there was actual damage done to the plaintiff which can be awarded for punitive

The content of the claim is what determines the validity of a claim and not the person as in the case of

Hi Cecelia, the information from the FNOL is gathering information to set up the claim. It does not provide a word for word account of what was said at the time of report.

The law of defamation in Australia has, until recently, lacked uniformity. Given the advances in technology and the growth of national publications, the pressure for

i. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defamatory statement made by the defendant is

The most famous defamation case, which still sets precedent in today's cases, is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. The case, heard before the Supreme Court, declared that public officials and figures could not recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and was made with actual malice. This decision prevents the news media from reporting on false or slanderous stories. It protects the country's public icons seeing they are almost always in the spotlight. In addition to defamation hindering media, obscenity and pornography on the net have placed limitations on what some websites may provide in terms of content.

In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year-old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2 months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor’s office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes. (Case Study, n.d.)

Defamation mean damage to the character or notoriety of somebody, specifically created by the false proclamation or demonstration of another. The Connecticut District Court ruled to support Swift Transportation Incorporation for two reasons. To begin with, there was no motivation behind why manager realism in regards to worker references ought not be shielded from criticism suits when it happens on the site since it was just as essential as it would be one-on-one dialog.

Several states allow ‘privileges’ that enable the dismissal of defamation cases without trial. Such privileges include the alleged defamatory statement being considered ‘fair comment and criticism’ if on matters

A third party is somebody who is away from the person making the announcement and the issue of the statement. Disparate the original significance of the word published, a defamatory statement does not have to be printed in a book. Relatively, if the statement is heard over the television or seen scribbled on someone's door, it is considered to be published to succeed in a defamation claim, the statement must be proven to have produced injury to the subject of the statement. This means that the statement must have hurt the reputation of the subject of the statement. As an instance statement has cause trouble when the issue of the announcement lost effort as an outcome of the statement. Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory that are true. A statement that is true about a person even if it is very hurtful is not proven to be defamation. In most cases because of the nature, statements of judgment are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker. A statement must be unprivileged in order to be defamatory. Policymakers are positive that people cannot sue for defamation in certain instances when a statement is considered privileged. For instance, when an eyewitness swears at trial and makes a statement that is both false and harmful, the eyewitness will be free to a lawsuit for defamation because the act of testifying at trial is private. Whether a statement is confidential or

Justification is one of these defences, to use this defence the journalist must prove that what they have written is substantially true. Before the defamation act of 1952 was passed, to succeed with a defence of justification you had to prove the exact truth of every defamatory statement made in the article in question.

The Defamation Act 1957 is an act relating to the laws of libel, slander and other malicious falsehoods. Defamation is a statement (of fact) about an individual, which is published, and which affects that person’s reputation. By looking at the Defamation Act 1957 and the Malaysian Penal Code, it would be probably rational to note that we have these laws in order to protect a person’s reputation regardless of the notion of press freedom since the right to publish by the media is not absolute[ http://repo.uum.edu.my/12982/1/1-s2.0-S1877.pdf]. The Malaysian Government through the Defamation Act 1957 and the Penal Code in the case of defamations there are some shortcomings and drawbacks of these acts which needs some transformations. There are few notions and recommendations which might help to soothe the current drawbacks of these acts.