3,009
edits
Changes
no edit summary
{{Dial-A-Law TOC|expanded = rights}}
==What is defamation?==
Defamation is communication about a person that tends to hurt the person's their reputation. It causes people who read or hear the reader or listener communication to think less of the person. The communication must be made to other people, not just to the person it's about. If defamation is spoken, then it is called '''slander'''. If it is written, it is called '''libel'''. It can also be a gesture, which is a type of slander.
The law protects your reputation against defamation. If someone defames you, you can sue them for money (called ''damages'') for harming your reputation. You have to must sue in Supreme Courtsupreme court, not Provincial Courtprovincial court, and you have to must sue within 2 years of the defamation. This is the '''limitation period'''. It starts when the defamatory statement was made or published. For more on the court system, check script [[Our Court System and Solving Disputes (Script 432)|432]], called “Our Court System and Solving Disputes”Disputes.”
The law doesn't protect you from a personal insult or a remark that injures only your pride. It protects reputation, not feelings. So if someone calls you a lazy slob, you might be hurt, but you would not have a defamation complaint unless the statement was made to another person.
If a person tells someone that you cheat in your business dealings, then you probably do have a good reason to suethe person, as long as he says they say it to someone else, not just to you.
Defamation can be a crime under the ''Criminal Code'', but only rarely. This script is about civil, not criminal, defamation. If someone has defamed you, and the publication also violates your reasonable expectation of privacy, you may also be able to sue for a violation breach of your privacy under the provincial BC ''[http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96373_01 Privacy Act]''. Further, [http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96210_01#section7 section 7] of the BC ''[http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96210_01 Human Rights Code]'' prohibits another type of defamation, namely, called a discriminatory publication. For more information on that, contact the [http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/ BC Human Rights Tribunal] at 604.775.2000 in Vancouver and 1.888.440.8844 elsewhere in BC. Also, check script [[Human Rights and Discrimination Protection (Script 236)|236]], called “Human Rights and Discrimination Protection”Protection.”
==What is libel?==
Libel is the type of defamation with a permanent record, like a newspapersocial media and other online posts, a letternewspapers, a website postingletters, an emailemails, a picturepictures, or a and radio or and TV broadcastbroadcasts. If you can prove that someone libeled you, and that person does not have a good defence (see the section on defences beloware described later), then a court will presume that may award you suffered '''general damages and award you money to pay ''' for your damaged loss of reputation. But going General damages can range from small to Supreme Court large amounts. It depends on several factors including how serious the allegation against you is expensive and even if you win, you may not get as much as it costs you to sue. In deciding on damagesthe credibility of your accuser (how believable they are), how broadly the Court will consider words were published, and your position in the community. For example, if you are a professional, general damages may be higher. You may also be entitled to '''special damages''', such as lost earnings, but only if you can prove that the lost earnings resulted from the defamatory statement, and not from other factors. If someone publishes with malice, you may be also entitled to aggravated or even punitive damages. But going to Supreme Court is expensive and even if you win, you may spend more on legal fees than you get in damages. The court will not award you your full legal costs, even if you win.
==What is slander?==
Slander is the type of defamation with no permanent record. Normally it's a spoken statement. It can also be a hand gesture or something similar. The law treats slander differently from libel: with slander, you may have to prove you suffered damages, in the form of financial loss, to get compensation. But with libel, You can sue for slander without proving you had an actual financial loss only if the words spoken do one of the law presumes following things:*accuse you suffered damages. For example, say that Bill told John of a crime (unless the accusation is made to the police)*accuse you were of having a cheatcontagious disease*make negative remarks about you in your work, profession, trade, and then John refused to do or business with *accuse you because of that. You sue Bill and prove that adultery If the words spoken don’t accuse you lost business with John because of what Bill said. Bill any of these things, then you would have to pay show that the words caused you for the loss of John's business, but not for the general damage to your reputation. It can be very hard to prove this sort of a financial loss. That's why most slander cases never go to court.
==What about the right to free speech?==
The law protects a person's reputation but this protection can restrict other rights, such as the right to free speech. The law tries to balance these competing rights. Sometimes, even though someone made a defamatory statement that hurt a person's reputation, the law considers other rights freedom of speech and expression more important. The law allows next section explains the following common defences for available to a person who makes a defamatory statement.
==What are the defences to a defamation lawsuit?==
If someone sues for defamation, the most common defences are:
*truth (known in law as "'''justification"''')
*absolute privilege
*qualified privilege
*fair comment
*responsible communication on matters of public interest
===3. Qualified privilege===This defence is where remarks that may otherwise be Qualified privilege allows a person to make defamatory were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reasonstatements about another person without liability. Say Qualified privilege arises when a former employee of yours gave your name to an employer as person makes a reference and that employer calls you for defamatory statement in performing a reference. You saypublic or private duty, "Well, frankly, I found that this employee caused morale problems." As long as you act in good faith and without malice, and your they make the statement is not made only to more people than necessary, then the defence of qualified privilege protects you if the former employee sues you for defamation. You gave your honest opinion and the caller had with a legitimate corresponding interest in hearing receiving it.
The duty can be legal, social, or moral. The test is whether a person of ordinary intelligence would think a duty existed to communicate the information to the audience it was made to. There are no exact rules on when qualified privilege arises. It depends on the facts of a case. If the communication is made under qualified privilege, the defense applies even when very strong language is used, or the statement is false. It is hard to rely on this defense for statements made on the internet because the defense protects a person only if they limit their defamatory statements to people who have an interest in hearing it. Defamatory statements on the internet are not limited this way. Instead, they go to the public. So they do not meet this test unless it is a matter that the public would be interested in or the internet publication is on a members-only site, not open to the public. An example of qualified privilege is when a previous employer provides a bad reference to a potential employer. If the previous employer honestly believed in the bad reference, then qualified privilege may protect them in giving the bad reference. ===4. Fair comment===
We all are free to comment—even harshly—about issues of public interest, as long as we are clear that our comments are:
*statements of expressed in a way that shows they are opinion, not fact.*based on facts that can be provenand those facts are either stated or otherwise known to readers or listeners.
*not made maliciously.
===5. Responsible communication on matters of public interest===
In a December 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Canada established this new defence to a libel claim. The court said that journalists should be able to report statements and allegations—even if not true—if there’s a public interest in distributing the information to a wide audience. This defence, which looks at the whole context of a situation, can apply if:
*the news was urgent, serious, and of public importance, and
*the journalist used reliable sources, and tried to get and report the other side of the story.
The court defined '''journalist''' widely to include bloggers and anyone else publishing material of ''public interest in any medium''. ===6. Innocent dissemination===The defense of innocent dissemination is important in the internet era. Generally, a person who takes part in publishing a defamatory statement is responsible for its publication. This includes a writer, editor, printer, and distributor. But a person who acts only as a distributor may be able to rely on the defense of innocent dissemination if they:*did not know that they were distributing a defamatory statement*were not negligent in not knowing, and immediately removed it from their website or from distribution when they learned of the defamatory statement. ==What is the effect does of an apology have?==A newspaper or a TV or radio station that publishes or broadcasts a libel can limit the amount of the damages they may have to pay by publishing or broadcasting an apology right away. But an apology or retraction does not prevent the libeled party from suing.
==Summary==
[updated February 20162018]
'''The above was last reviewed for accuracy by Karen Zimmer and edited by John Blois.'''