Defamation
Introduction
The law of deformation plays a critical role in society, as it helps in protecting the reputation of people in different communities and manages the concept of freedom to speech. The idea is regarded as intentional tort and through false statements and action (McKenzie, 2015), it causes harm in other individuals, and this can occur through liberal or slander. Some of the consequences incurred after defamation include hatred, being regarded as a disgrace in societies and avoidance of other significant issues.
Pressing charges on account of defamation is possible, and there are specific requirements. The defamatory statement is the first consideration, which indicates the intent to harm that should be evaluated in a rational manner. However, once the declaration has been acknowledged, the person been attacked needs to be appreciated and attended using the above approach (MacCallum, 2015 p. 678).
Main Body
The law of defamation can be classified into two based on the UK definition to be either Liberal or slander. The concept has two specific aims with the first one being to offer remedy over people's reputation from others whatsoever as one way of guaranteeing the privacy of the concerned individuals. The goal is met by preventing the publication of untruths, an aspect that can significantly damage personal lives (Low, 2013 p. 98). An objective of the above tort of defamation is to ensure that people have freedom of speech and fair representation in investigating persons involved in any malpractice whatsoever. The sole role of the defamation is to uphold the freedom of expression as well as protecting people's reputation in the public (Van Noorloos, 2014).
Hence, defamation helps protect people from untrue imputation against another, which can ruin their reputation. Moreover, in the case of a defamation allegations, the said statements remain to be untrue till they are proved by the defendant, and this case can be addressed by the high court in any given state (Gidron, 2013). One is said to have committed defamation once he/she is involved in the publishing of a third person's words that contradicts the truth hence ruining the reputation of the others in the public image. However, specific details should be considered for one to validate the defamation process. The first element identified by the claimant is that the words used contradict the society expectation, an aspect that will make an individual to be hated, ridiculed or avoided by the general public (Tort Law, 2013 P. 854).
For effective communication to be realized in any society, there is a need to adhere to the different regulations placed by the tort. While liberal refers to written published word that is exposed to the public, slander focuses on the spoken word. Both cases are a crime, although slander requires definite proof to indicate that damage has indeed been committed, and it, therefore, means a damage that can be evaluated on a monetary basis (Bryan, 2014 P. 20).
The case that will be used for the study to indicate defamation in corporate organization concerns four individuals who are co-workers at a company and are willing to destroy another's reputation because of their hatred. Al, Bob, Carl and Dolly worked at an international organization where they served different roles all the same and on a particular day, all the employees of the organization were required to attend a mandatory meeting. Before the meeting, Al went to Dolly's office and threatened her not to leave her office for the meeting that day lest he will kill her and other close friends. However, immediately after the hash statement directed to Dolly, Al left for the meeting leaving Dolly in the office scared for her safety, an aspect that made her miss the mandatory meeting.
On the next day, however, Bob, a colleague at work put some sleeping pills in Dolly's coffee, which went unnoticed. Dolly drank the coffee and fell into a deep sleep a few minutes later and was reprimanded for her misconduct by Carl, who was her supervisor then. Contrarily to the truth, when the human resource manager asked to know the problem with Dolly that made her sleep at work and miss the meeting, the response given by Carl was that she had a serious drinking problem, an aspect that made her not to perform well at her job. However, it is worth noting that Carl was indeed aware of the sufficient cause of the problem but decided to destroy the Dolly's reputation to the manager, an aspect that made Dolly lose her job.
In response to the above case, we can assert that Dolly was assaulted by Al in various ways with the first attempt being the intentional harming of another person without consent. This statement can be justified by the mere fact that Al entered her colleague's office shortly before the meeting and threatened her not to leave for the adjourned meeting and furthermore, Al subjected Dolly to some serious threats, for example, losing her life. However, it can still be argued that Dolly had an opportunity to move from the room and attend the meeting after the departure of Al as he only intended to scare her so as to miss out from the meeting. The statement said to Dolly by her colleague subjected Dolly to reasonable apprehension, and this action can be validated in that she was indeed afraid for her safety.
Another claim evident from this case is false imprisonment that Dolly was subjected to by her friend as there was intent from the case that made Dolly be afraid, therefore confining herself to her office as required. Al knew that by subjecting Dolly to the harsh statement of not leaving her room lest she met her death had a real impact in Dolly, although the move can be regarded to be intentional and voluntary.
Moreover, Dolly was confined to her office by Al against her will as she was subjected to serious threats that would cost her life. In fact, it is the threat that made her afraid and succumbed to Al's wish to remain confined to her office so as to miss out from the meeting although Al can defend himself from the allegation by indicating that Dolly had the option to escape from her room once he was out. However, Dolly can still justify her action of not leaving the house because of the threat that Al and his friend will eventually harm her. The use of threats of harm is enough evidence to encourage an individual to confine within a particular area subject to the instilled fear on the plaintiff (Pierce, 2013). Therefore, it is evident that Dolly has a claim to sue Al for the false imprisonment, making her miss the meeting.
It is evident that Bob had a negative impact on his colleague as he intentionally put the sleeping pills in her coffee. There is an element of an offensive contact to Dolly as indicated from the study, and this can be justified by the mere fact that Bob placed the pills in her coffee without her consent. Apparently, the coffee was closely connected to the plaintiff as something that will be drunk by the person and if interfered with will cause harm to Dolly. Although Bob did not get into contact with Dolly, her action to inject the pills into her coffee was enough to indicate his harm intentions to the plaintiff. Hence, it is evident that Bob will be held responsible for battery against the applicant as evidenced by the findings.
Moreover, the defamatory statement offered concerned the plaintiff and for the above case, Carl's remark negatively impacted on Dolly's behavior of missing from the meeting and sleeping at her desk. To indicate the exposure of the message to a third person through publishing, it is important to appreciate that Carl made the remarks to the human resource manager who in this case will be regarded as the third party. Furthermore, the damage caused by the defamation is the fact that Dolly's professional career was brought to a halt and further spoilage of her reputation to the public. The false statement that Dolly had a drinking problem had a negative impact on her profession as it was misunderstood that she had a professional misconduct.
Therefore, although Carl can defend himself from the case by indicating that the defamatory statement about Dolly was part of his responsibility being her supervisor, the defense can still be challenged. This is because the remarks made by Carl concerning Dolly was false and had the intention to spoil her reputation hence, adequate evidence that Carl can be held responsible for damages for defamation. The only remedy for the above case, therefore, is to ensure that the numerous victims indicated to have involved themselves in defamatory damages should be held responsible and set free Dolly as she a victim of circumstances (Davies & Lee, 2008).
Another case to discuss is "Safeguarding Democracy" by the Human Rights Law Center, which is committed to ensuring that equity, freedom and dignity are achieved. Australia is a democratic country whose success lies in different facets although the same is faced with various issues such as the set policies, and practices that are aimed at eroding the different democratic rights of the citizens (Yang, 2014).
The government has enforced some laws that significantly reduce the government transparency among other critical issues. The government has developed a lot of extreme power hence empowering the political elites and other stakeholders that limit the transparency in the government operations. The process has incapacitated the mandate of different environmental groups that are supposed to challenge the use of fossil fuel in the country by being subjected to some threats. Moreover, the various nongovernmental organizations mandated to protect the minorities are limited by the government to perform their different jurisdiction (Council, 2011). In fact, the country has a broad range of anti-protest laws that are focused on meeting the various priorities of the politics and other business stakeholders' needs. Furthermore, the different whistleblowers found to alert the public concerning the abuse of the human rights of the people face undesirable punishment including prosecution and jail. The media actions are limited by the different policies as there is no confidentiality, courts and other institution that protect upholding of the human rights regulations are also subjected to various punishments (Capie, 2015 p. 675; Poorman, 2013 p. 68).
The government has the mandate of enforcing effective policy tools that will allow for freedom to speech, free flow of information, and a fair election that will allow for representation of the people. Protesting on the issues that affect the people will act like the only possible solution and an environment that allows for a civil society. Realizing the above objectives will guarantee the people from being subjected to human abuse and make the leaders represent the needs of the public and those of the minorities (Azriel & Mayo, 2014).
Conclusion
Defamation is a concept that is experienced in any society, especially when there are people with an ill motive to destroy the reputation of others, causing harm. For the case considered in the study, Dolly's reputation is impaired by fellow colleagues who hate her, an aspect that makes the human resource manager to see her as a person with professional misconduct and fires her from work. However, in reality, there are false allegations directed to Dolly by her colleagues with an intention to destroy her reputation at work.
Bibliography
Azriel, J, & Mayo, C (2014). 'In the Age of Social Media. Times V. Sullivan And Gertz V. Welch Decisions Still Important to Defamation Trials', Journal of Internet Law, 17(8) pp. 26-33
Bryan, V (2014) “Margery Kempe and the legal status of defamation”, Journal of Medieval Religious Cultures, 40(1), pp. 20–43.
Capie, JM (2015).'Freedom of Unspoken Speech: Implied Defamation and Its Constitutional Limitations Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division, First Department', Touro Law Review, (31) p. 675
Council, A.P. (2011) Media release 22 Feb 2016 - Australian press council. Available at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/media-release-22-feb-2016/ (Accessed: 2 March 2016).
Davies, M.R. and Lee, B.A. (2008) ‘The legal implications of student use of social networking sites in the UK and US: Current concerns and lessons for the future’, Education and the Law, 20(3), pp. 259–288.
Gidron, T. (2013) ‘Defamation law in turbulence: Does Israel need “Libel Reform”?’, Israel Law Review, 46(01), pp. 95–134
Low, KY 2014, 'UK defamation act (2013), Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 26, 1, p. 98,
MacCallum, W (2015). 'Defamation actions and social media: Where are the risks?', Governance Directions, 67(11) pp. 677-679,
McKenzie, K. (2015) ‘“The laws of his own Country”: Defamation, banishment and the problem of legal pluralism in the 1820s cape colony’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 43(5), pp. 787–806.
Non-Competition Covenants/Defamation/Equitable Remedies' 2016, Business Torts Reporter, 28(4) pp. 90-93,
Pierce, A. J. (2013). New York's Appellate Courts Wrestle with Significant Issues in Internet Defamation Cases. Journal of Internet Law, 17(4), 1-24.
Poorman, MT (2013). 'Get with the Times: Why Defamation Law Must be Reformed in Order to Protect Athletes and Celebrities from Media Attacks', Texas Review Of Entertainment & Sports Law, 15(1) pp. 67-85
Tort Law - Defamation - New York Appellate Division Holds that the Imputation of Homosexuality is no Longer Defamation Per Se. - Yonaty v. Mincolla, 945 N.Y.S.2d 774 (App. Div. 2012)' 2013, Harvard Law Review, 126(3) pp. 852-859
Van Noorloos, M (2014). 'Criminalising Defamation of Religion and Belief', European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 22(4) pp. 351-375
Yang, L.K. (2014). 'UK Defamation Act 2013: Key Changes [article]', Singapore Academy of Law Journal, (1) p. 98
