GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
22:45 Feb 11, 2006 |
English to Dutch translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Retail / Agreement | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Dennis Seine United States Local time: 10:01 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 | libellous = geschreven laster |
| ||
4 | zie tekst hieronder |
|
Discussion entries: 1 | |
---|---|
defamatory versus libellous libellous = geschreven laster Explanation: to defame: 'to cause actual injury to someone's good name' to libel: to write or print something that defames him or her' Uit: Oxford American Dictionary |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
defamatory versus libellous zie tekst hieronder Explanation: What is defamation? The traditional definition of defamation was publication of a false statement which subjected a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt. That rather archaic definition has given way to a more modern one: a defamatory statement is one which tends to lower the reputation of the subject in the eyes of right-thinking people. (That means that a person cannot sue for having his reputation lowered in the eyes of, for example, other members of his criminal gang!) Defamation is divided into two forms: libel and slander. Historically, libel was the written form of defamation, while slander was the spoken form. The advent of modern technology has made those definitions obsolete. Even though broadcasting is, in one way, a more transient medium than newspapers, the invention of tape and video recorders means that a false statement can now be preserved in the same way as a newspaper cutting. So today, a defamatory statement broadcast on radio or television or the Internet would be regarded as libellous, rather than slanderous. The essential practical difference between libel and slander nowadays is that, in a slander action, the plaintiff (that is the person bringing the action) has to prove that the words caused him actual damage, financial or otherwise. There are, however, exceptions to this rule. If a spoken statement suggests that a woman has been unchaste, or slanders a person in his profession or calling, or suggests that a person has a criminal record or contagious disease, no proof of actual damage is necessary. Defamation is what is known as a "strict liability" offence, which means that the state of mind of the offender is irrelevant. No intention to defame is required. Everyone involved in the publication of a defamatory statement is liable to be sued - including the journalist, sub-editor, editor or producer, owner and distributor! Repetition of a defamatory remark may give rise to a separate action - and the complainant may sue everybody who repeats the libel. An actionable defamatory statement has three ingredients: it must be published, it must refer to the complainant and it must be false. Publication Reference: http://indigo.ie/~kwood/defamation.htm |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.