Defamation+Law

Wiki by Richard Frazer
 * What is the definition of Defamation, its components, defenses, and remedies?**

**What is Defamation?** The Collins (2007) dictionary generally defines the verb //defame// as to attack the good name//,// or reputation; to slander, badmouth, cast aspersions on, denigrate, discredit, disparage, knock, libel, malign//.//

Defamation lowers the reputation of a person or organization in society. It may expose a person or organization to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or to be shunned or avoided (Gerbic, 2006). It is unjustified publication//,// which may be fully true, or partly true. So protecting against defamation is to protect a person’s, or organizations reputation. //In New Zealand, defamation is actionable without the need to prove special damage//? (Hubbard, 2010 p.201-2).

There are two types of defamation: libel and slander. Libel is //in a permanent or potentially permanent form: e.g. writing. Slander is in transient form, usually speech// (Gerbic, 2006, p.468).

However, not all careless verbal attacks are defamation. Instead, it may be to do with racism, discrimination, hatred, bad humour; which is still bad. Different people get offended at different sorts of things depending on their culture, morality, truth, values, tastes, ethics, religion, or worldview.

** Some examples: ** · A TV station (or presenter) may criticize a politician during an election, causing them to loose the election. · An employer may criticize a past employee to a future employer or the media, causing them to no longer be able to work in that field.

**Where does this law come from?** Recently the law relating to defamation comes from the Defamation Act 1992, which came from past Acts, legislation, and court cases. This law is also related to the NZ Human Rights Act 1993 (section 21), The NZ Bill of Rights 1990 (Section 14), and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (article 1,2,5,7) provides protection for free speech, and the misuse of the Defamation Act 1992.

**What are the protections against Defamation?** The Defamation Act 1992 provides the protections against wrongful defamation, and the misuse of the Defamation Act (Gerbic, 2006). There are a number of principles which are:

** Principle 1: Truth ** Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1992 states that if the statement is true then there is no defamation. However, exaggeration has no protection. //Truth is a defense because a persons reputation rests on it// (Gerbic, 2006, p.468)//.//

** Principle 2: Honest Opinion ** // ( //// Sec. 9-12, DA92) // This has a good side such as for protecting society, and informing about a product; and a bad side such as a critical review of a play in a magazine, or a newspaper attack on a former NZ prime minister. So for the statement not to be defamation the opinion must be based on correct facts (Gerbic, 2006).

** Principle 3: Consent to publication ** This means that if the plaintiff gave consent to publication then no defamation has occurred (Gerbic, 2006).

** Principle 4: Absolute Privilege ** //(Sec. 13-15, DA92)// This is reserved for statements said in the NZ Courts, and in Parliament (Gerbic, 2006).

** Principle 5: Qualified Privilege ** //(////Sec. 16-19, DA92)// Qualified Privilege is protection against media reports (e.g. newspaper, TV, magazines) from the NZ Courts, in Parliament, and third party groups (e.g. job reverence) (Gerbic, 2006)//.// Politicians are protected from things said in parliament, but not outside it (Hubbard).

**What are the remedies to Defamation?** In order for the plaintiff to succeed in a defamation court case, three of following requirements need to be met which are: · That the defamatory statement has been made. · That the defamation was towards the plaintiff. · //That it has been published by the defendant// (Hubbard, 2010, p.201).

The Defamation Act 1992 provides a few methods of compensation for a person genuinely wronged by defamation, after defamation has been proved. Gerbic (2006) gives a few methods (p.469) which are:

** Solution 1: Damages ** Monetary damages are often awarded in defamation cases. Damages are: //Compensation for loss suffered, awarded by a Judge or jury in a civil action// (Gerbic, 2006, p.xlii). The amount of damage to a person’s reputation is hard to determine (Gerbic, 2006). Sometimes famous people are protected by the courts, if they commit an offence, which would end their career.

** Solution 2: Injunction **//(Sec. 25, DA 1992)// The court may also award an Injunction. This may consist of the //withdrawal of a book or magazine written by the defendant, and/or issuing a warning to repeat the defamation in public speeches// (Gerbic, 2006, p.469).

** Solution 3: Declaration **//(////Sec. 24, DA92)// The court may force a declaration in the media by the plaintiff (e.g. TV, newspapers, magazines). This is where the plaintiff //wishes to clear his or her name and does not seek, and other remedies like damages// (Gerbic, 2006, p.469).

** Solution 4: Recommendation of Correction ** //(Sec. 26, DA92)// The court may also award a recommendation of correction for the defendant//.// If the defendant does, then the plaintiff has no further compensation. If the defendant chooses not to, then the plaintiff wins, and can receive damages (i.e. money) as the court decides (Gerbic, 2006).

**Where can I find more information about defamation?**

=
You can find more information on the Defamation Act 1992 on the New Zealand Legislation website: [|http://www.legislation.govt.nz]. You could also find information on the Human Rights Commission website: [|http://www.hrc.co.nz]. The following website could also be interesting to look at : http://www.uow.edu.au/~/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html.======

**Disclaimer** This information should be clarified by a qualified Lawyer.

**Bibliography**
 * Collins (2006). //The Collins Pocket Dictionary & Theasaurus//. (4th ed.). Great Brittan: Harper Collins.
 * Hubbard,J., Thomas,C., & Varnham,S. (2010). //Principles of Law: for Business Students// (4th ed.). Auckland, New Zealand. Pearson Education.
 * Gerbic, & Lawrence. (2006). //Understanding Commercial Law//. (6th ed.). Wellington: Lexis Nexis.