Frequently Asked Questions

Defamation is any published material that damages the reputation of an individual or an organisation. This covers material on the internet, on the radio, television broadcasts, newspapers and even in dramas and fictional materials.

The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory statement is made. If the offending statement is made in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then it is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, internet blogging and the like, then it is libel.

Defamation laws protect individuals or organisations from unwarranted, mistaken or untruthful attacks on their reputation. A person is defamaed if a publication:

• Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
• Causes them to be shunned or avoided;
• Discredits them in their trade, business or profession;
• Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society.

Defamation of goods (also known as injurious falsehood) is defamation against the goods or services of a company or business. For example, saying that you found a severed finger in a particular restaurant's soup (if it isn't true) is defamation of goods or injurious falsehood.

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a false statement of fact that is understood as being about an identifiable person or group of persons and that statement is tending to harm the reputation of that person; and
2. the publication of the statement to a person other than the person being defamed.

The test of what the words mean is what a reasonable reader is likely to take as their natural and ordinary meaning, in their full context - what you intended as the author or publisher is irrelevant.

The mere fact that certain types of statements were made and published will result in 'automatic' damages without the need to prove that there has been a loss of reputation. Such statements are called 'defamation per se'. The following statements, if false, are traditionally 'defamatory per se':

• A statement that charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
• A statement that imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
• A statement that tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
• A statement that imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity of a women.

No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as an opinion or as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. Dressing up an assertion of fact as an opinion will not make it an opinion. An example of such a 'dressing-up' is the statement that "It's my opinion that Trinity is the prostitute who murdered Frank".

The law lays down a number of ways in which defamatory publications may be defended. If the defences succeed, the publisher wins. But if they don’t succeed, the publisher loses: the complainant will have been defamaed and will therefore be entitled to be paid damages and their legal costs. The defences are:-

• Justification. The most usual defence against defamation is to prove that the information published is true. But this can be a dangerous route because an unsuccessful plea could increase the damages against you because you will have increased the harm to the complainant. And remember, you must be able to deal with every defamatory possibility, such as inference and innuendo. If your statement infers something greater, it is not enough to prove that the statement is just literally true. Merely asserting something will not be sufficient to prove that it’s true - you will need witnesses and documents to back up assertions (whether they’re yours or someone you’re quoting).
  
  
• Fair comment. Fair comment covers content, mainly opinion, that cannot by its very nature be true or false. To be properly defensible, these comments must be:
  • Based on fact
  • Made in good faith
  • Published without malice
  • On a matter of public interest
  
  
• Privilege. Privilege is the defence where the law recognises that individuals should be free to speak their minds (and others to report what they say) without fear of being sued even if they get their facts wrong. It allows people to speak freely in court proceedings and debates in Parliament, and allows for such proceedings to be reported, so long as the reports are both fair and accurate.

Yes. You will be as liable as if you have witten the material yourself.

Under the Singapore Defamation Act, an apology will only go towards reducing damages that a person can claim. However if the defamatory statement was made innocently, then an offer to make amends will be a defence to any defamatory action.

To make a defamation claim, that person defamed need not be mentioned by name, so long as he/she is reasonably identifiable. So if you defame 'that government officer with a house at 123, ABC Street', he can still be reasonably identifiable as the person defamed.

In the Singapore Defamation Act, 'newspaper' is defined as 'any paper containing public news or observations thereon or consisting wholly or mainly of advertisements which is printed for sale and is published in Singapore either periodically or in parts or numbers at intervals not exceeding 36 days'. Since a blog may not be a 'paper printed for sale', the protection to newspapers called 'qualified privilege' may not apply to blogs. Understand that this has not been tested in the courts.

Yes. On 10 December 2002, the High Court of Australia handed down a judgment in the Internet defamation dispute case of Gutnick v Dow Jones. The High Court's ruling effectively allows defamation plaintiffs in Australia to sue for defamation on the internet against any defendant irrespective of their location. The court stated: "If people wish to do business in, or indeed travel to, or live in, or utilize the infrastructure of different countries, they can hardly expect to be absolved from compliance with the laws of those countries. The fact that publication might occur everywhere does not mean that it occurs nowhere". Singapore courts are likely to follow that decision.

The most important point is to make absolutely sure that what you are printing or writing is true. Do not make claims or accusations that you cannot prove. Even if you think you can do this, be cautious. Proving things in court can be very difficult.

Don’t rely on the literal meaning. You cannot solely rely on proving that your statements were literally true if, when they’re taken as a whole, they have an extended, more damaging meaning. Also, for example, if somebody was guilty of fraud once, calling him a fraudster in a way which might suggest he’s still doing the same may well give rise to a libel which can’t be defended. Be especially wary when referring to events in the past.

Don’t exaggerate in your claims or language. For example, a company may run a factory which produces certain chemicals. For you to suggest that babies will be born deformed as a result may get you into libel trouble.

Innuendo can catch you out. Your comments may not appear particularly defamatory taken at face value, but greater knowledge of a person or situation may make it problematic because of the innuendo. To say Mr Jones doesn’t recycle his waste paper may sound harmless enough. But to people who know that Mr Jones is a Green Party activist, the innuendo of the statement is that he is hypocritical in his politics.

Repeating rumours. It is inadvisable to repeat a defamatory rumour unless you are in a position to prove it’s true. Even if you are contradicting the rumour you should not repeat it. And adding ‘allegedly’ is not enough to get you out of libel difficulties.

Quoting others. If you publish defamatory remarks about people or organisations made by other people you will be just as liable to be sued as they are. So if you can’t prove the truth of their statements, don’t repeat them.

Drawing unprovable conclusions. It is a common mistake to draw unverifiable conclusions from the basic facts. For example, if Mr Brown is seen going into a hotel room with a call-girl, this does not necessarily mean he enjoyed a ‘night of passion’, and will certainly not prove that he did.

Irresponsible adjectives. Be very careful about the adjectives you use. A misplaced word can result in costly action. If you are campaigning about a factory that releases chemicals into the atmosphere, referring to the factory as ‘poisoning the atmosphere’ is inadvisable!

Representing all sides. Presenting all sides of an argument is often good practice, but is not a defence against publishing defamatory remarks made by or about those involved.

You should consider one or more of the following steps, depending on how serious the case is or how far you wish to pursue the matter:

• Take legal advice as soon as possible and before responding to the claimant.
• Check the original statement and any associated investigative work collected before it was written.
• Consider withdrawing the original statement if, after checking, you think your words were mistaken.
• Perhaps do further investigative work to help explain your position.
• Keep all drafts and supplementary documentary evidence.
• Ensure all those involved in the writing and research of the statement are aware of the situation and aware they may have to provide evidence or statements.
• Inform your insurers, if you have libel insurance, and comply with their requests.