查看完整版本 : 誹謗官司中的 “良心評論”【fair comments】

浪裏白條 2018-10-17 12:08 PM

誹謗官司中的 “良心評論”【fair comments】

【轉載:[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_comment[/url]】
“The law as to fair comment, so far as is material to the present case, stands as follows: In the first place, comment in order to be justifiable as fair comment must appear as comment and must not be so mixed up with the facts that the reader cannot distinguish between what is report and what is comment: see Andrews v. Chapman. [FN16] The justice of this rule is obvious. If the facts are stated separately and the comment appears as an inference drawn from those facts, any injustice that it might do will be to some extent negatived by the reader seeing the grounds upon which the unfavourable inference is based. But if fact and comment be intermingled so that it is not reasonably clear what portion purports to be inference, he will naturally suppose that the injurious statements are based on adequate grounds known to the writer though not necessarily set out by him. In the one case the insufficiency of the facts to support the inference will lead fair-minded men to reject the inference. In the other case it merely points to the existence of extrinsic facts which the writer considers to warrant the language he uses. In this relation *320 I must express my disagreement with the view apparently taken by the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland in the case of Lefroy v. Burnside [FN17], where the imputation was that the plaintiffs dishonestly and corruptly supplied to a newspaper certain information. The Court treated the qualifications "dishonestly" or "corruptly" as clearly comment. In my opinion they are not comment, but constitute allegations of fact. It would have startled a pleader of the old school if he had been told that, in alleging that the defendant "fraudulently represented," he was indulging in comment. By the use of the word "fraudulently" he was probably making the most important allegation of fact in the whole case. Any matter, therefore, which does not indicate with a reasonable clearness that it purports to be comment, and not statement of fact, cannot be protected by the plea of fair comment. In the next place, in order to give room for the plea of fair comment the facts must be truly stated. If the facts upon which the comment purports to be made do not exist the foundation of the plea fails. This has been so frequently laid down authoritatively that I do not need to dwell further upon it: see, for instance, the direction given by Kennedy J. to the jury in Joynt v. Cycle Trade Publishing Co. [FN18], which has been frequently approved of by the Courts.”

=================
我的評論: 網上言論很多時候涉及其他人的品格,質素,道德水平 等等。三思而後行,記得本帖子所勾畫的範圍!

30902018HKG 2018-10-17 10:08 PM

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

浪裏白條 2018-10-17 10:14 PM

[quote]原帖由 [i]30902018HKG[/i] :。。& Cheng Siu Yung (鄭少容) - DCCJ 4437 / 2016 - [2018] HKDC 514,Issue 3 – Co ... [/quote]

謝謝你。
但是我想 “consent” 可能是另外一種辯護理由,不同於“fair comments”
頁: [1]
查看完整版本: 誹謗官司中的 “良心評論”【fair comments】