What is the difference between libel/slander and malicious falsehood?
In malicious falsehood the claimant must prove:
the words are false;
the words were published maliciously; and
special damage has flowed from their publication unless the publication falls within certain criteria.
The words need not be defamatory, but they must be false.
In addition, the claimant carries the burden of proving all three elements which can make the claim more difficult than a libel claim.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Questions_And_Answers.aspFurther up on that page:
When are words defamatory?
There is no set definition of 'defamatory'. A statement may be considered to be defamatory if it tends to do any one of the following:
lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally;
disparage a claimant in his business, trade, office or profession;
expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule or contempt; or
cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.
Whether or not a statement has that effect is measured against the standard of the reasonable man generally and not a limited class of people who may have different standards from the majority of members of society.
Common examples of what may be considered defamatory are allegations that suggest a person is:
Immoral
Dishonest
Corrupt
Insolvent or in serious financial difficulties
Incompetent
Guilty of a criminal offence
The producer of shoddy goods
Standards of morality constantly change and so what would have been immoral twenty years ago may not necessarily be so today.
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.
It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.
