{"id":949,"date":"2022-09-21T14:33:21","date_gmt":"2022-09-21T13:33:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?post_type=publication&p=949"},"modified":"2022-09-22T10:58:56","modified_gmt":"2022-09-22T09:58:56","slug":"types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/","title":{"rendered":"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Opinion versus statements of fact<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

We discussed above factual statements that may be defamatory. \u00a0However, expressions of opinion are differentiated from factual statements.\u00a0 General Comment No. 34<\/a> states that defamation laws, particularly penal defamation laws, \u201cshould not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification,\u201d[footnote]UN Human Rights Committee, \u2018General Comment No. 34 at p 6 (2011) (accessible at https:\/\/www2.ohchr.org\/english\/bodies\/hrc\/docs\/gc34.pdf<\/a>).[\/footnote] such as opinions and value judgments.\u00a0 It also notes: \u201cAll forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To determine what counts as an opinion, courts tend to look at whether a reasonable person would understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact, which is capable of being proven to be true or false. \u00a0In the context of social media, a reasonable reader tends to be defined as someone who would ordinarily be following and reading the statement. The Singapore High Court has applied a somewhat broader definition of the \u2018ordinary reasonable person\u2019 as someone \u201cassumed to possess general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs\u201d.[footnote]Loong v Hiang <\/em>[2021] SGHC 66 (2021), (accessible at: https:\/\/www.elitigation.sg\/gd\/s\/2021_SGHC_66<\/a>).<\/em>[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The context in which the statement was made is critical to determining whether a reasonable person would understand it as an opinion or as a statement of fact.\u00a0 There are, for example, ways in which a statement of opinion may appear to be factual in nature.[footnote]Electronic Frontier Foundation, \u2018Online Defamation Law\u2019 (accessible at https:\/\/www.eff.org\/issues\/bloggers\/legal\/liability\/defamation#:~:text=Generally%2C%20defamation% 20is%20a%20false,slander%20is%20a%20spoken%20defamation.[\/footnote] In 2020, a US District Court dismissed a defamation lawsuit against controversial Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson, noting that the “‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’\u201d[footnote]US District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:2019cv11161 – Document 39\u2019 (2020)(accessible at: https:\/\/law.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/district-courts\/new-york\/nysdce\/1:2019cv11161\/527808\/39\/<\/a>).[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humour<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, content that a reasonable person would identify as humour or satire, rather than as stating a fact, should also be treated as an opinion. For example, the Malaysian Court of Appeal has stated that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No reasonable person will read a cartoon with the same concentration, contemplation and seriousness as one would when reading a work of literature. Cartoons exaggerate, satirize and parody life, including political life. [\u2026] The political cartoonist, unlike the serious political pamphleteer, seeks to ridicule persons and institutions with humour to deliver a message. It will be most exceptional if a political cartoon will have the effect of disrupting public order, security or the safety of the nation.[footnote]Malaysian Court of Appeal, Zulkiflee Bin SM Anwar Ulhaque v. Arikrishna Apparau <\/em>(Zunar Case<\/em>), Civil Appeal No. W-01-500-2011 (2014).[\/footnote]<\/p>Malaysian Court of Appeal, Zulkiflee Bin SM Anwar Ulhaque v. Arikrishna Apparau <\/em>(Zunar Case<\/em>),
Civil Appeal No. W-01-500-2011 (2014).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court of India came to a similar conclusion in respect of a film containing a song that was deemed offensive to the Bata India footwear company, concluding:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[T]he song appears to have been written in the context of the theme of the film and ought not be taken as any kind of aspersion against the persons named in said song.<\/p>Bata India Limited v. Prakash Jsh Prodcutions And Others<\/em>, (Record of Proceedings), SLP (C) No. 32998 (2012) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.casemine.com\/judgement\/in\/56e0fa97607dba3896607a0a<\/a>).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Statements of Others<\/strong><\/em><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A point of consideration, particularly for journalists, is the extent to which they are liable for repeating defamatory statements of others since a central part of their work is reporting on the words of others.\u00a0 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR<\/a>) has found that a journalist is not automatically liable for quoting opinions of others, and is not required to \u201csystematically and formally\u201d distance themselves from \u201cthe content of a statement that might defame or harm a third party,\u201d[footnote]European Court of Human Rights, Application No. 1131\/05 (2007).[\/footnote] provided they have not repeated potentially defamatory statements as their own, endorsed, or clearly agreed with them.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Privileged Statements<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Privileged statements refer to certain statements which receive protection against defamation liability due the public interest in this based on the circumstances in which they were made.\u00a0 Statements from legislature or judicial proceedings are usually considered absolutely privileged, meaning that neither the author of the statement nor a fair media report on it may be held liable for defamation.\u00a0 A number of other statements which involve social or moral responsibilities \u2013 such as giving a reference on someone or reporting a crime to the police \u2013also enjoy qualified privilege, which means they are protected unless they were made with malice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whose Burden of Proof?<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A general principle of law is that the burden of proof lies with the claimant \u2014 the person who brings the suit or makes the \u201cclaim\u201d.\u00a0 However, with defamation, this principle is generally reversed, and the responsibility lies with the defendant \u2014 the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement \u2014 \u00a0to prove that the statement did not damage the claimant\u2019s reputation, either because it is true or for one of the other reasons listed above.\u00a0 The United States is a prominent exception to this rule, wherein the burden of proof of falsity of the statement in cases brought by any public figure falls on the claimant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, in defamation cases concerning the public interest, international standards have been evolving towards the US approach to the burden of proof, as articulated by the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan<\/em>.[footnote]New York Times Company v. Sullivan<\/em>, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) at para. 40.[\/footnote] The special international mandates on freedom of expression have called for the burden of proof to be on the plaintiff in such cases. For example, in their 2000 Joint Declaration, they noted that \u201cthe plaintiff should bear the burden of proving the falsity of any statements of fact on matters of public concern\u201d.[footnote]2000 Joint Declaration on Current Challenges to Media Freedom (2000) (accessible at: https:\/\/www.osce.org\/files\/f\/documents\/c\/b\/40190.pdf<\/a> ).[\/footnote] The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has also affirmed that \u201cwhere truth is an issue, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff\u201d.[footnote]Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Mission to Italy from 11 to 18 November 2013, (2014) at para. 23 (accessible at: https:\/\/undocs.org\/A\/HRC\/26\/30\/Add.3<\/a>).[\/footnote] Nevertheless, a clear consensus on this approach has not yet emerged, with the European Court of Human Rights\u2019 dismissing arguments to adopt the Sullivan<\/em> approach in their 2002 judgment in McVicar v. United Kingdom<\/em>.[footnote]Application No. 46311\/99 (2002) at para. 87 (accessible at: https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/app\/conversion\/pdf\/?library=ECHR&id=001-60450&filename=001-60450.pdf<\/a>[\/footnote]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Remedies and Penalties<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As discussed above, criminal penalties have been the focus of much attention by international bodies.\u00a0 It is notable that no international human rights court has ever upheld a custodial sentence imposed on a journalist. \u00a0It is important that civil defamation laws contain sufficient checks and balances on the size of damage awards to prevent them from unduly stifling freedom of expression.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Opinion versus statements of fact We discussed above factual statements that may be defamatory. \u00a0However, expressions of opinion are differentiated from factual statements.\u00a0 General Comment No. 34 states that defamation laws, particularly penal defamation laws, \u201cshould not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification,\u201d[footnote]UN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"parent":938,"menu_order":116,"template":"page-templates\/chapter.php","publication-category":[],"class_list":["post-949","publication","type-publication","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nTypes of Potentially Defamatory Statements | eReader<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements | eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Opinion versus statements of fact We discussed above factual statements that may be defamatory. \u00a0However, expressions of opinion are differentiated from factual statements.\u00a0 General Comment No. 34 states that defamation laws, particularly penal defamation laws, \u201cshould not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification,\u201d[footnote]UN […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"eReader\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-09-22T09:58:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\\\/\",\"name\":\"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements | eReader\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-09-21T13:33:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-09-22T09:58:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Publications\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"Module 5: Defamation\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/publications\\\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\\\/module-5-defamation\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":5,\"name\":\"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/\",\"name\":\"eReader\",\"description\":\"Media Defence\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.mediadefence.org\\\/ereader\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements | eReader","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements | eReader","og_description":"Opinion versus statements of fact We discussed above factual statements that may be defamatory. \u00a0However, expressions of opinion are differentiated from factual statements.\u00a0 General Comment No. 34 states that defamation laws, particularly penal defamation laws, \u201cshould not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification,\u201d[footnote]UN […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/","og_site_name":"eReader","article_modified_time":"2022-09-22T09:58:56+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/","name":"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements | eReader","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-09-21T13:33:21+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-22T09:58:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/types-of-potentially-defamatory-statements\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Publications","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Module 5: Defamation","item":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/publications\/modules-on-litigating-freedom-of-expression-and-digital-rights-in-south-and-southeast-asia\/module-5-defamation\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":5,"name":"Types of Potentially Defamatory Statements"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/","name":"eReader","description":"Media Defence","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/949","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/publication"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication\/938"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"publication-category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mediadefence.org\/ereader\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/publication-category?post=949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}