The Defamation Is A Law That Protects The Reputation Of People, Companies And Other Organisations

o Defamation – An intentional tort. The reputation of the victim is damaged publicly by untrue statements made by the tort-feezer.

Defamation is defined as a statement that injures another party’s reputation. Defamation includes both written statements, libel, and spoken statements, slander. In order to prove defamation 4 things must be shown: a false statement claiming to be true is made, sharing that information either verbally or through written communication with a third party, fault and damages.

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 states, “it is unlawful for any … corporation … to … disseminate … any statement … which is untrue or misleading.” “Untrue” is defined as “factual misrepresentations” (compared to “puffery”). Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 523 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2008).

Under the Publications (Immigration Issues) Bill 2014 (Cth) the current government wishes to restrict the publication of materials on the immigration policy. They wish the law to also be used in relation to material that have already been published. This is in response to the comments made by freelance journalist Daryl Dixon who has been publishing hateful comments about the Walkers Political Party which the government considers to be against public interest.

1: Censorship? How about the consequences? Have we forgotten that everything that we do corresponds to a responsibility?

In common law, defamation in writing is classified as Libel, and oral defamation as Slander” There are four elements of defamation.

The first documented case of the need for shield laws for journalists found place in 1848. A journalist was

Bernadette’s “giving a false identity” was permissible to break the illegal “accredited media” restriction. Government’s “accredited media” invitation to parliament debate was disguised restriction, infringing Bernadette’s rights to “receive” information as a journalist of dissent media and the public’s rights to “receive” information from “a different perspective” , which violated applicant’s Article 19 rights of UDHR .

Libel simply is "defamation of character by published word", the publishing of falsities to hurt a person's reputation or standing. However, now it is not limited to only printed word as in newspapers or magazines. Slander, which is defined as "defamation of character by spoken word" is now portrayed as a form

“Many laws exist in Britain restraining the media. In 1992, the White Paper, Open Government, identified 251 laws outlawing information disclosure. Two years later the Guild of Editors listed 46 directly relating to journalists. The laws of libel, contempt, defamation, obscenity and ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop alleged breaches of confidence all act as restraints on the media.” (Keeble, Richard/ Ethics for Journalists)

Any person who commits any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to

Law Provisions for Journalists Facing Defamation Cases The law of defamation exists to protect both the moral and professional reputation of the individual from unjustified attacks. The law tries to strike a balance between freedom of speech and a free press with the protection of an individual's reputation. Should journalists face defamation cases there are defences available.

By definition defamation is the act of injuring someone’s character or reputation by false statements. Cases of defamation are only considered attacks on if they are made in a vindictive or malicious manner. The person’s name is considered not only personal but proprietary right of reputation. Defamation is synonymous with the words libel and slander in terms of law. Defamation is a term that encompasses both libel and slander. Libel is a term used to describe visual defamation; as in newspaper articles or misleading pictures. Slander describes defamation that you can hear, not see. It is mostly oral statements that tarnish someone’s reputation.

Problems take place within the media when public interest is conflicted with human right and the right to privacy. You can easily validate publishing privet information as a form of public interest, but you however cannot justify the damages it may cause.

A starting attempt to dissect this is to decipher whether these attacks and percecutions online are a free speech or criminal issue. It’s a criminal act to legitimately threaten someone, this is not disputed, what is disputed is how to determine the difference, as Tom Slater phrases it, “between a joke, criticism, the posturing of a keyboard wielding shut-in and genuine threats,” (Slater). Slater believes online harassment is a free speech issue, one that cannot be dealt with by with by governing forces, or higher courts. He believes it’s not an issue that can easily be done away with, and is not something that law can interfere with for fear