It isn't libelous to ask the question, Carana. Then for balance - if one is available - you would include any explanation the people concerned had themselves given. If they never did give an explanation themselves then that isn't the fault of the person or persons asking the question.
From Carter-Ruck's website:
Determining the meaning of words gives rise to a great degree of uncertainty in a libel action. It is not only the superficial meaning that may be defamatory but also any 'hidden' meaning which can be inferred. There are three levels of meaning to be aware of:
##inference, in other words a meaning that can be read between the lines without any specialist knowledge; and
##innuendo, a meaning which can be attributed to the words by readers who have a specialist knowledge.
The onus is on the claimant to show the facts giving rise to the innuendo and that these facts are known to the readers. For example, to say that a person eats meat is not defamatory on its face; if, however, some readers know that the person professes to be a committed vegetarian, the statement may be considered defamatory, suggesting he is hypocritical or dishonest.
The words must be put in their full context, including headings and captions to any photographs. For the purpose of deciding whether words are defamatory, the intention of the author is irrelevant. All that matters is the impression which the words give to readers.
