There are two different kinds of meaning that can be considered in a case of defamation – the normal meaning, which includes all the alternative, figurative and connotative meanings that can be derived from the word or imagery, and the innuendo meaning. An innuendo meaning is subdivided again into false innuendo and true innuendo. False innuendo is when the meaning suggested through innuendo is generally available to most people and does not require any other knowledge. True innuendo is when the innuendo intended requires special knowledge to understand and make it defamatory. For example if the defendant congratulated the plaintiff on their expectation of a baby this would not be viewed as being defamatory, until or unless you have the knowledge that the plaintiff is an 18 year old devout Christian, who is unwed and regards her own body as pure and chaste. In this case the seemingly amiable congratulations on a pregnancy can be seen, with special knowledge, to make an innuendo that the plaintiff is not as sexually ascetic and religiously principled as they are generally considered to be. This would be defamatory.
Defamation, malice, reckless disregard and negligence
Malice is a prosecution's argument; it works to counter a defence of fair comment or qualified privilege. If it can be proved that the defendant acted with defamation due to malicious intent then those defences would not be operative.
Malice is defined as the act of defamation performed with the intent to harm the party being defamed. An absence of belief in the defamatory statement, or a reckless disregard for whether or not the statement was true, is usually enough to conclude that the defamation was performed with "actual malice".
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
Bloody google ....
