Defamation is it for the rich - Essay Example

It is evident from the research that the law of defamation appears to be rather simple since a plaintiff seeking to substantiate a claim is generally required to establish that the defendant made/published defamatory statements and that those statements referred to the plaintiff or at the very least, any reasonable or objective person would conclude that the statements referred to the plaintiff. However, below the surface, there are barriers contained in common law precedents and statutory provisions that complicate an otherwise simple requirement to the extent that access to justice is not so straighforward.

For instance, the word “malice” consistently appears in the Defamation Acts and case law although proof of malice is merely a theoretical requirement and is “purely formal”. As W. Horton explains:“Though the word (maliciously) is usually inserted in the plaintiff’s statement of claim, no one takes any notice of it at trial except for the purpose of inflating damages where there has been spite or deliberateness.” Be that as it may, the overuse of the word malice is only a small token of the complexities with which act as an impediment to a straightforward defamation law suit.

The more serious issues are found in the substantive law. For instance, defences such as fair comment and truth are typically available but will only protect opinionated statements and will do nothing to protect statements of fact. While there are other defences the underlying goal of defamation law is to provide for the accuracy and fairness of published or communicated statements.