Forum Archive Index - June 2000

["Jeremy" <jeremy@electrosilk.net>]

> Defamation is defined as the publication of a statement which adversely
> affects the reputation of a person or a company.
> Defamation can be accidental and can be caused simply by innuendo. In
> fact, simply repeating defamatory statements made by others
> unfortunately means that the person repeating the statements can also be
> liable.
> If a defamatory statement is made that will affect a company or person
> financially, they may be able to sue even if the facts are true but
> presented in a way that leaves the wrong impression.

There is another requirement : That the people hearing or reading the
defamation can reasonably expect it to be true.  So calling the prime
minister a brain damaged moron, for instance, is unlikely to get any
satisfaction for the prime minister in court.

It doesn't matter in the least that the publisher believes what they are
saying.  Only the resultant opinions of the people hearing it makes any
difference.

It also doesn't matter if the subject of the defamation believes it to be
true or not.  Again, it depends only on the third parties.

I can't remember the full wording of the offending article, but the parts
describing drawing company's names out of a hat is very unlikely to be
actionable.  I suspect the rest falls into the same category.

A simple test to see if there is a problem : If there is anybody out there
who took the email at face value, could they put their hand up?

jeremy



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.