Tweet
Fair comment in defamation defense
In countries where there is freedom of speech and expression, it is accepted that people have the right to make fair comments about things. Journalists often rely on the defence of fair comment.
In this case, you do not need to prove the truth of your comment. In some cases this is not possible, especially if it is an opinion rather than a fact. You only need to convince the judge or jury that your comments were your honestly-held opinion, and that this opinion was a reasonable one, based on the facts available to you.
Your words might be harsh or exaggerated, but you only have to satisfy the judge or jury that it was a comment that a fair-minded man or woman might have made on the same facts.
The defence of fair comment is most often used by people analysing some issue or event. This can range from political or economic analysis to reviews of plays, films, books or music.
The comment does not have to be a provable fact, but it must be based on provable facts. For example, a restaurant reviewer might describe the service as "poor" - a word which means different things to different people. It is an opinion, not a fact, so the reviewer cannot use the defence of truth for this comment. However, if the reviewer also wrote that the waiters took half-an-hour to take the order then another hour to fetch the meal, which was the wrong order anyway, these are provable facts. From these facts, any reasonable person would also describe the service as "poor".
Public interest
In some countries, the defence of fair comment (and sometimes the defence of truth) is often tied to one condition - that the topic you are writing about is a matter of public interest. This means that the subject is one in which the public has a reasonable interest - in other words, a right to know.
This right to know includes matters which are in the public arena, but it does not cover matters which are the purely private concerns of an individual. For example, you can comment on the way a politician was elected, how he does his job or how he treats his staff. But the courts have ruled that the way he treats his wife in the privacy of their home is not in the public arena. (You can, of course, report that he beats his wife, but you must use another defence, such as truth, against any possible action for defamation.)
A word of warning: in some countries, the law states that fair comment can be used as a defence only on "matters in the public interest". This means that the public must also benefit from knowing your comment. This is very difficult to prove and therefore very limiting to journalists. You should check the exact wording of your country's defamation laws.
In countries where there is freedom of speech and expression, it is accepted that people have the right to make fair comments about things. Journalists often rely on the defence of fair comment.
In this case, you do not need to prove the truth of your comment. In some cases this is not possible, especially if it is an opinion rather than a fact. You only need to convince the judge or jury that your comments were your honestly-held opinion, and that this opinion was a reasonable one, based on the facts available to you.
Your words might be harsh or exaggerated, but you only have to satisfy the judge or jury that it was a comment that a fair-minded man or woman might have made on the same facts.
The defence of fair comment is most often used by people analysing some issue or event. This can range from political or economic analysis to reviews of plays, films, books or music.
The comment does not have to be a provable fact, but it must be based on provable facts. For example, a restaurant reviewer might describe the service as "poor" - a word which means different things to different people. It is an opinion, not a fact, so the reviewer cannot use the defence of truth for this comment. However, if the reviewer also wrote that the waiters took half-an-hour to take the order then another hour to fetch the meal, which was the wrong order anyway, these are provable facts. From these facts, any reasonable person would also describe the service as "poor".
Public interest
In some countries, the defence of fair comment (and sometimes the defence of truth) is often tied to one condition - that the topic you are writing about is a matter of public interest. This means that the subject is one in which the public has a reasonable interest - in other words, a right to know.
This right to know includes matters which are in the public arena, but it does not cover matters which are the purely private concerns of an individual. For example, you can comment on the way a politician was elected, how he does his job or how he treats his staff. But the courts have ruled that the way he treats his wife in the privacy of their home is not in the public arena. (You can, of course, report that he beats his wife, but you must use another defence, such as truth, against any possible action for defamation.)
A word of warning: in some countries, the law states that fair comment can be used as a defence only on "matters in the public interest". This means that the public must also benefit from knowing your comment. This is very difficult to prove and therefore very limiting to journalists. You should check the exact wording of your country's defamation laws.
Comment