What an eye opening lecture on RSA defamation law. Thank you. But respectfully, you did confirm some of what I already knew. The plaintiff HAS to take the witness stand & face cross examination. The defendant can subpoena any and ALL records pertaining to the case. AND
You also confirmed that the plaintiff MUST demonstrate how his/her reputation was injured. BUT here is a caveat. They must demonstrate that their reputation was intact BEFORE the alleged defamation and that YOU, the defendant did something that was not already done to them.
But I did learn that under RSA law, the plaintiff's reputation is injured if "the statement tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society."🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
I am not easily shocked but this part of our defamation laws shocked ME: It does not matter if statement is true or untrue Defamatory nature of statement is not dependent on its falsity but must be substantially true & public has advantage or legitimate interest therein🤔
And then of course, the other pillars: Privileged occasion: There must be a certain type of relationship between the person making the allegedly defamatory statement and the person to whom the content was communicated (journalist -public)
Fair comment – This defence differs from truth & public interest. Basis of defence is the fact that a comment or opinion exists. This defence protects the right of a citizen to honestly express genuine opinion..(I think this is unfair to plaintiff but hey, I don't make the rules)
There's more, but I have a date. He is waiting. And looks amazing tonight. I guess the rest can be shared when summons are served. Good night all.
