Further information

Much of journalism involves statements and publications that may include comments of a defamatory nature. For this reason negative articles will ridicule certain individuals, groups and companies but whether or not the publishers can defend the defamatory material is key to whether they can be brought to court.  

2. Who is responsible for defamatory material?

Anyone involved with the publication can be deemed responsible and therefore may be sued if they cannot defend the published work.  

3. How does the issue of defamation and the related laws affect work submitted on the Internet?

Cyber-space provides obvious problems for defamation laws as, clearly, it transcends both state and national boundaries. This does not leave the Web exempt from the risks involved with defamation; quite the contrary, it heightens the tension. The problem is that there is no clear jurisdiction over the Internet and no physical place of publication. Defamation Laws vary globally and they also vary between different states and territories, the Internet transcends all these divides. For these reasons publications on the Internet have to work with the most dire scenario in any given event or article, incorporating defamation laws everywhere.  
 
 
 
 

4. Defending Defamation

Here lies the key to working with defamation. Material of a defamatory nature may be justifiably published if it can meet the requirement of a defamation defense.

There are 5 main defenses: truth, fair report, fair comment, qualified privilege, and the political qualified privilege defense.

1. Truth

In this case the publisher must show that the defamatory allegation was not some fictitious concoction but that it was true. This means that they must be able to convince the courts with sufficient evidence. In certain states the publisher will also be required to show that not only was the defamatory remark true but that it significantly related to or benefited public interest.

2. Fair Report

This is generally related to areas of public interest. To use this defense the publisher would need to prove that the defamation was integral to a fair and accurate report of some special occasion or procedure, i.e. court or parliamentary proceedings.

3. Fair Comment

This involves proving that the writer defamed the party in their honest opinion and for the good of public interest. It is also important to note that the material must be fact-based and that all facts must be provable.

4. Qualified Privilege

This involves proving that there was some type of mutual duty-interest relationship, which can exempt any publication that may not be able to prove that the facts were true. This law is variable in different states and involves differing notions of reasonable behavior and professionalism. It generally suggests that, as indicated by the reciprocal relationship, there was an attempt to show the defamed parties viewpoint.

5. Political Qualified Privilege

This is related to issues involving the government or politics. The publisher needs to be able to show that it behaved in a professional manner and that there was valid reason to believe any accusations that lead to the final defamation 
 

It is vital to understand that notions of good faith and malevolence are significant in all the above stated defenses and within the broader topic of defamation in general. If the injured party or the court suspects that a publication has been motivated by malice, then all defenses could be rendered useless as the writer’s integrity would be questionable, as would the motivation for the publication.