Analysis of The Defamation Act 2013

1363 Words6 Pages
The Defamation Act 2013 was passed to help regulation on defamation to deliver more effective protection for freedom of speech, while at the same time ensuring that people who have been defamed are able to protect their reputation. It is often difficult to know which personal remarks are proper and which run afoul of defamation law. Defamation is a broad word that covers every publication that damages someone's character. The basic essentials of a cause of act for defamation are: A untruthful and offensive statement regarding another; The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party; If the offensive situation is of public concern, fault amounting at least to carelessness on the share of the publisher; and Injury to the plaintiff. Slander and libel are both kinds of defamation, which refers to statements that hurt another person's name. While there are connections, each concentrate on different forms of defamation approaches. Normally, this will include not only the use of certain words to harm a reputation, but also activities such as finger signals or facial expressions in order to emphasize the fabrication that is being dispersed. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." Libel deals with printed matter, TV and radio broadcasts, movies and videotapes, social media sites, even blogs, emails, even drawings on a wall. An unpleasant statement is verbal; the statement is "slander." Slander explains defamation that you can overhear, not see. It is commonly spoken statements that distort someone's reputation. The government can't jail someone for making a defamatory statement since it does not break the law. Instead, defamation is considered to be an infringement of a person's ...

... middle of paper ...

...protect those who printed claims, even though they may be untrue, by disagreeing that they had the right to do so. Further, the defenses of ‘justification’ and ‘fair comment’ have been replaced with ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’. Another major change in the law of defamation deals with tortfeasors who do not reside in the UK, an EU member state or a state which is part of the Lugano Convention. The change means that the UK court does not have to perceive any case if it can be proved the UK would be the most suitable place to deal with the action against the tortfeasor. A particular publication law has also been recognized, which accommodates the occurrence of online news stories. In this law, a one year restriction starts when a story is issued. Every time the story is repeated or watched, a single action cannot be brought about by the claimant against the publisher.

More about Analysis of The Defamation Act 2013

Open Document