Defamatory meanings and the hazards of relying on the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ fiction

Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question—what do the words complained about actually mean? The process of determining defamatory meaning depends heavily on what the court finds to be t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Joseph M Fernandez
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Asia Pacific Network 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/0e3eb6d1c6dc4d1ab42ded2f59cdc6e0
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question—what do the words complained about actually mean? The process of determining defamatory meaning depends heavily on what the court finds to be the imputations conveyed by the matter concerned to ‘ordinary, reasonable people’. The process relies on assumption and conjecture, rather than on evidence. This article examines how this process applied in the Hockey v Fairfax Media case brought by Australia’s former Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey against Fairfax Media, which presented a paradox—the court described the journalists’ articles concerned in glowing terms but still found for the plaintiff.