Defamation Flashcards
- During the courtroom proceedings of a trial for theft, defendant Dani says that a witness who says Dani committed the theft is a “compulsive liar”. The witness may be able to win a defamation suit against Dani for her statement:
A. only if Dani is convicted
B. regardless of whether Dani is convicted
C. unless the witness was indeed proved to be lying
D. under none of the circumstances above
It’s D. The privilege applies to courtroom proceedings, so Dani is immune from liability for her statements there and witness can’t win regardless of A, B, or C.
- Facebook CEO Jack Dorsey speaks in Nanyang Auditorium. A student in the large audience shouts: “You killed people! You spread Covid misinformation!” To initiate a defamation suit in Singapore, the CEO must prove:
A. actual, quantifiable damage to his reputation
B. that the words were recorded
C. that the words were uttered with malice
D. all of the above
E. none of the above
It’s E. It’s slander. It’s not A; actual damage is not required, as it sometimes is in slander cases, because of the nature of allegations—about criminality—which puts the statement in the category for which proving special damages is not required. Not B; the CEO could prevail without it being libel. Not C; malice is not required in libel or slander suits, though it can defeat some of the defences.
- Which is NOT true of libel defences?
A. Privilege can apply to reports that appear in news media in some circumstances
B. Fair comment and some forms of privilege can be lost if there is evidence of a publisher’s malice
C. The justification and fair comment defences could apply to different statements in the same newspaper article
D. The justification defence can be lost if there is malice
It’s D, because D is false. The choices are true except that the justification defence can be lost if there’s malice; the truth defence is absolute and, unlike fair comment and some forms of privilege, cannot be lost even if the truth is spoken for malicious motives.
- Richard Simmons, a well-known fitness guru in decades past who stopped making public appearances, sued a tabloid for claiming Simmons is “living as and transitioning to a woman”. Under Singapore/UK law, which must Simmons prove to commence a libel suit for the statement?
A. The statement tends to harm reputation
B. A majority of readers found it defamatory
C. A majority of readers know who Richard Simmons is
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s A. To commence a libel suit, Simmons must prove that it’s defamatory for the tabloid to allege that he is transgender; that the magazine identified him; and that the magazine published the statement. Not B; the standard for defamatory sting is that reasonable, ordinary, right-thinking members of the society found it defamatory, but they need not be a numerical majority. Not C; there’s no requirement that a numerical majority recognise the person, only that identifiable characteristics allow some people (at least one!) to recognise the person. This is based on a real US case in which Simmons sued and the judge ruled it wasn’t defamatory to say someone is transgender; in other jurisdictions, the question would also be whether it’s defamatory, but the answer may be different.
- In an Instagram post, Elle refers to Hermione as “nerdy and kiasu about studying”. Whether this has defamatory sting depends on:
A. whether Hermione interprets it as harmful to her feelings
B. Hermione’s view on whether it’s harmful to her reputation in the eyes of the majority of her friends
C. a court’s determination of whether it’s harmful to Hermione’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people in the audience
D. whether Elle intended to defame Hermione
E. all of the above
It’s C. Neither A not B; it’s not a subjective test based on Hermione’s feelings, her views, or her friends’ views, but an objective, reasonable person test. Not D; intent is not required.
- A minister announces he is waiving the privilege for words he speaks in Parliament on a given day. This means:
A. he could be found liable for defamation for words he said
B. he is immune from liability for defamation for words he says, as is usually the case in Parliament
C. newspapers and broadcasters are immune from liability for reporting his words, even if they report unfairly and inaccurately and with malice
D. his words cannot be used against him in a court of law
E. only two of the above
It’s A. Not B; he waived the immunity from defamation liability that usually applies in Parliament. Not C; his waiving of the privilege doesn’t affect any privilege of the media; they can be confident of the privilege only if they report fairly, accurate, and without malice. Not D; his words could indeed be used against him in a defamation suit.
- In Singapore, as in some other jurisdictions, defamatory words that identify the plaintiff and are spoken on a broadcast on a radio station like 93.8 FM could be deemed:
A. slander, unless they are recorded
B. libel, even if they are not recorded
C. either slander or libel, depending on the facts of the case
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s B. Singapore’s Defamation Act says, “For the purposes of the law of libel and slander, the broadcasting of words by means of telecommunication shall be treated as publication in a permanent form”. Since it’s considered recorded, it can be libellous if the other criteria are met (it has defamatory sting and is published) but it’s not slander (neither A nor C).
- Which is true of the innocent dissemination defence? It can be used to protect the:
A. librarian who loans out a book containing libel
B. printer of a newspaper with libel in it
C. author of a newspaper article who reports rumours that other people told her
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s E. Innocent dissemination can be used to defend those who pass on defamatory material only when they have no duty to be aware that the material is defamatory. Librarians and printers have no such duties (not A nor B). Authors, on the other hand, are responsible for what they publish, including the statements of others (not C).
- Richard Simmons, a well-known fitness guru who has stopped making public appearances, sued a tabloid for claiming Simmons is “living as and transitioning to a woman”. Assume that the tabloid’s statement is proved true: Simmons is indeed “living as and transitioning to a woman”. Under Singapore law, the tabloid could win a libel suit:
A. if the editor published the material as revenge, because she is Simmons’ ex-girlfriend
B. if the editor published the material with malice
C. both of the above
D. none of the above
It’s C. Both A and B; any angry, spiteful, malicious motive is not relevant if the claim is true; that’s why we say truth is an absolute defence. (What’s more, there’s the question about whether transitioning actually has defamatory sting.)
- Disappointed by the election results, an enraged Wee Kim Wee student writes in her blog, “Club President Deyong ran on the slogan that he ‘has it covered.’ He has it covered, for sure. He covered up the corrupt means through which he won the election.” This is an example of expression that:
A. may be defamatory (i.e., have defamatory sting)
B. could not be deemed published because it does not appear in mass media
C. identifies a potential plaintiff
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s E. It certainly has a defamatory sting to allege corruption, so A is okay. It’s not B because the requirement is only that publication be to one other person besides the potential plaintiff. The statement names a potential plaintiff (complainant), so C is okay. Thus it’s E.
- On Instagram you regularly post your views on current affairs. With your privacy settings set to public, you write this post; these words are the entire post: “He may have won Singapore’s Olympic Gold, but I bet mommy and daddy had to pay off a few gahmen officials to get that NS deferment”. At the time, Joseph Schooling was Singapore’s only Olympic gold medallist. If Schooling’s parents were to sue for defamation, which is true?
A. The plaintiffs are likely to be deemed identifiable for purposes of a libel suit based on the words above
B. These words would likely be deemed “published” for purposes of a defamation suit
C. A court would most likely require that the plaintiffs were identified using their full names in the post before they could proceed with the libel suit
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s E. Identification doesn’t require full names (so not C), just identifiable characteristics, so A is okay; these words in context narrow down who is being referred to very effectively. All that’s required for publication is circulation to another person, so B is okay.
- A Time Out Singapore review of Ariana Grande’s performance at F1 Singapore says, “She performed ‘Side to Side’ without vigour or soul”. To succeed in a fair comment defence against Grande’s libel suit, it must be true that:
A. whether or not she performed with vigour or soul can be proved true or false
B. Grande performed the song that night
C. the quality of her performance is not a matter of purely private interest
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s E. B is okay; to qualify as fair (honest) comment (opinion), there must be some factual basis underlying the opinion, and having performed the song that the opinion is about is a perfect example. C is okay; the comment must be on a matter of public interest, which is conceived very broadly; it need not be of momentous importance, like an election result, but it must be more than a purely private matter like her intimate life. Not A; the opposite is true: to qualify as comment, the vigour or soul of her performance must be matters of opinion that cannot be proved true or false.
- Which is true of libel in Singapore?
A. The Singapore government as a whole can sue for harm to its reputation when it is criticized, as many Singapore precedent cases make clear
B. A corporation can sue for harm to its business reputation in Singapore
C. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can file a suit for harm to the reputation of his late father
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s B. Individuals may sue but government cannot in England and very likely would not be allowed to in Singapore, so not A; there are not many precedent cases in Singapore. A corporation can sue; it’s like an individual in this respect, so B. There is no civil libel liability for the dead, so not C.
- Day 1: Channel NewsAsia accurately reports that the prosecutor asserted at trial that D violated the Sedition Act. Day 2: D is acquitted; CNA reports the acquittal. D asks her lawyer if she can sue CNA for day 1’s announcement. For day 1, CNA likely has a defence of:
A. justification
B. fair comment
C. privilege
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s C; for reporting accurately (and, it appears, fairly) on court proceedings, CNA can rely on a form of the privilege. Not A; the justification defence requires not only that one accurately report that the assertion was made but also the truth of the assertion; however, it’s not true that D violated the Sedition Act. Not B; whether or not D violated the Sedition Act is a matter of fact, not opinion.
- Ariana Grande files a civil suit in Singapore against The Chainsmokers for comments the pop duo made about her from the Singapore F1 stage. Which is true?
A. Grande is defendant
B. Chainsmokers are the plaintiffs
C. Chainsmokers may have to pay a fine to the Singapore government if they lose the suit
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s E. The person making the complaint (Grande) is the plaintiff (not A); the persons defending against the complaint (Chainsmokers) are the defendants (not B). The penalty in a civil suit is usually monetary damages to plaintiff; it’s not a fine to the govt.
- Ariana Grande files a civil suit in Singapore against The Chainsmokers for comments the pop duo made about her from the Singapore F1 stage. Which is true?
A. Grande is defendant
B. Chainsmokers are the plaintiffs
C. Chainsmokers may have to pay a fine to the Singapore government if they lose the suit
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s E. The person making the complaint (Grande) is the plaintiff (not A); the persons defending against the complaint (Chainsmokers) are the defendants (not B). The penalty in a civil suit is usually monetary damages to plaintiff; it’s not a fine to the govt.
- At a meeting with several co-workers at your PR firm—including your boss, Helga—you become frustrated and say, “Helga, you lied about finishing your work on this account”. Which is true if Helga sues for defamation?
A. Your words to Helga could be deemed libellous because they were obviously spoken with malice
B. Helga may be required to demonstrate that the words caused monetary damage in order to fulfil her burden of proof
C. A form of the privilege might apply in this situation
D. Only two of the above are true
E. None of the above
It’s D. A form of the privilege can apply in certain settings including business meetings (C is okay). This is spoken defamation so it’s slander, not libel (not A). And there’s no evidence of malice from the circumstances, which is further evidence against A. In many slander cases, the plaintiff would have to prove monetary damages. B is okay; proving damages is unnecessary if the allegations are certain very serious ones, such as allegations of professional incompetence and unfitness for one’s profession or office—but this allegation is more limited to the particular project, so the plaintiff would likely have to prove damages.
- Your current employer, Hoda, writes a reference letter for you that is critical of your work and sends it to a potential new employer. Hoda believes you are an above average employee but she is intensely jealous of you because of your excellent education. Hoda most likely:
A. will be able to successfully assert the privilege to avoid defamation liability, even if you can prove she wrote the letter primarily because of jealousy
B. would lose the privilege if you can prove she wrote the letter primarily because of jealousy
C. would lose all potential libel defences if you can prove she wrote the letter primarily because of jealousy
D. would not be considered to have “published” the material in the letter if it is delivered only to the potential new employer
E. None of the above
It’s B. If you can prove that your employer wrote the letter out of malice, such as a spiteful motive like jealousy, she will lose the privilege (so B, not A). She wouldn’t lose all potential defences, however; she still might have truth, if she could prove it. Publication is circulation to a third party—at least one other party besides the person it is about—such as the potential new employer, so not D.
- Based on a real case: You posted on Facebook that you saw your boss “with her boyfriend” and tagged her in your post. It turns out that the man you saw her with was her husband. She threatens to sue you for defamation. She claims that her friends who know she is married (to someone, even though they don’t know him), now believe, based on your post, that she is having an affair with a “boyfriend”. Which is true of how the components of the unintentional defamation defence might apply?
A. You may be deemed to have published “innocently” if you did not know she was married
B. In order to prevail on the defence, you would have to make an offer of amends, which is an offer of a cash payment
C. One question for the court would ask is whether you took reasonable care when you posted that the man is her boyfriend
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s E. A is okay; publishing innocently can involve saying something that is neutral on the surface, not knowing it is defamatory given all the background facts. Not B; an offer of amends involves an apology and correction circulated to those who saw the libel. C is okay, and the court’s answer might not come out well for you.
- Under Singapore law, a statement can have defamatory sting, be published, identify the plaintiff, and yet not be subject to defamation liability if it is:
A. not provably true or false, and is fair comment
B. provably true
C. false, and published on a privileged occasion
D. all of the above
E. only two of the above
It’s D. A is okay; it’s the fair comment defence. B is okay; it the justification defence. C is okay; it’s the privilege.
- The “Dim Sum Dollies” is a popular and critically acclaimed three-member musical cabaret group in Singapore. A Singapore blogger writes, “The evidence is there at every performance: they give new meaning to the song ‘Little Shop of Horrors’ by singing it so horribly, in such an overly dramatic way”. Which is true?
A. Any of the three who sues individually may be considered identified for purposes of libel law
B. This is the sort of statement that is obviously malicious on the face of it and therefore ineligible for the fair comment defence
C. This is the sort of statement that is very likely to be protected by a form of privilege
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s A. When members of small groups sue individually, they may be considered identifiable, and though there’s no magic threshold, three is certainly few enough so that an individual can be identified, so it’s A. Malice almost always requires evidence beyond just the words themselves, and this is not an “obvious” exception to that, so not B. (Furthermore, exaggeration is permitted in statements of opinion.) There’s no general privilege for the media when covering current events; the media rarely get the privilege in Singapore outside certain official settings and reporting about them, and there’s no reason to believe that bloggers would be more successful in getting it, so not C.
- Portia comes from a humble background but is trying to live her dream of a “Crazy Rich Asians” lifestyle in Singapore. In a profile of her in the lifestyle magazine Singapore Tatler, she is described as “thrifty and prudent when it comes to matters of luxury”. Portia feels this description harms her reputation; she desires to be seen as a big spender. The court must determine if the statement has defamatory sting:
A. to the people in Portia’s social circle
B. to the ordinary, reasonable, right-thinking persons in the audience
C. in Portia’s honestly-held view
D. all of the above
E. none of the above
t’s B. That’s the standard for defamatory sting, not the people you choose (not A) nor your own views (not C).
- A local gym posted a security camera photo of a WKWSCI alum and said she enters the gym though she is not a paying member. If she sues the gym for libel,
A. the identification and/or publication requirement would not be met in this case
B. assuming the alum can prove she is a paying member, she has a shot at winning
C. the gym has a solid defence of fair comment
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s B. It has defamatory sting to allege she is not paying her dues. Not A; she is identified by photo and it’s published—it is circulated to at least one other person (actually many more)—on the wall of the gym. Not C; whether she is a member is not a matter of opinion.
- Let’s say that in the last question, the gym posted the alum’s photo because (1) the alum’s membership expired, and she is entering with another member’s card, and (2) gym management was angry at her for negative comments that the alum wrote in her blog about the gym. Which is true?
A. The gym will lose its justification defence because of malice
B. The gym has a possible justification defence to the alum’s defamation action
C. The alum has a strong case for slander
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s B. Justification is an absolute defence, which is not defeated by a showing of defendant’s malice, so B is okay, not A. This is not a slander case because it does not involve merely spoken words (not C).
- A WKWSCI student tweets, “PJ Thum engaged in sedition by posting to Facebook ‘happy unofficial independence day to the people of Singapore!’ on Malaysia’s Independence Day”. PJ Thum consults his excellent lawyer, LL Bee, about filing a defamation suit, and she tells him:
A. “This tweet definitely falls under the privilege. Can’t help you, buddy.”
B. “This tweet is definitely fair comment. We can’t win this one, friend.”
C. “PJ, we might have a shot at winning, or we might lose. Either way, it could be a long court battle.”
D. “This tweet definitely earns the justification defence, PJ. No point suing. We’ll lose and have to pay the other side’s legal costs.”
E. “It’s a sure win if we sue Twitter. Big money!!”
It’s C. Nothing is definite or sure about this case, but let’s get more specific. Not A: it’s unlikely to be privilege: Why would a WKWSCI student have a duty to tweet this? Not B: it’s unlikely to be judged a matter of opinion whether he violated the law, and if it’s not a statement of opinion, it cannot be fair comment. Not D; it’s not “definitely” true—a court would have to convict for sedition, which is far from certain, for it to definitely be justified. Not E; it’s very unlikely that Twitter could be held liable under Singapore law.
- In your review of “Crazy Rich Asians” for local arts site Popspoken, you comment, “Lead actress Constance Wu got the role by saying yes to advances of powerful men—the same guys that other actresses, who created the #metoo movement, tried to stop”. Which is true about how a Singapore court would likely interpret the words?
A. The court’s interpretation depends mostly on your intention
B. You don’t state directly that CW accepted sexual advances to get the role, so you need not fear that a court would find that the words mean that
C. This is likely to be fair comment, assuming you had no malice
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s E. Not A; intent to defame is not required; the question is whether the ordinary right-thinking person sees the words as defamatory. Not B; the common meaning of these words appears to be that Wu accepted advances that others protested. Not C; these are allegations on factual matters—whether or not Wu acted in the way that is alleged—not matters of opinion.
- In your review of “Crazy Rich Asians” for local arts site Popspoken, you say, “Henry Golding’s shallow, grating performance proves one point: he does not deserve his leading role”. Golding considers a libel suit in Singapore. These remarks are likely to be interpreted as a:
A. statement of opinion that could be fair comment
B. statement of fact
C. prejudiced comment that cannot be fair
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s A. Shallowness of a performance and whether an actor deserved a role are matters of opinion that people could have different opinions about, not statements of fact (not B) that could be proved true or false. There’s no reason to believe these are prejudiced comments, and even if they are, they may still be fair, as long as the maker honestly believes them.
- Revolted by local actress Janice Koh’s performance in “Crazy Rich Asians”, you shout out during a local screening, “You’re no Meryl Streep, Janice!” when Janice is on screen. The audience laughs. Meryl Streep is one of the most awarded actresses in film history. Janice is among customers at the cinema. Janice messages her excellent lawyer, Laura, and asks about suing you in Singapore. Laura replies with this good advice:
A. “Chill out J, you’d have to prove monetary damage, and that doesn’t seem likely”
B. “Chillax, Jan, it’s likely to be a statement of opinion that could be fair comment”
C. “OMG Janice! I’m on my way. This case is a sure win for you. $$$ damages!!”
D. Only two of the above are sound advice
E. None of the above are sound advice
It’s D. A is okay; actual, provable, quantifiable damage is required for slander and seems unlikely from words shouted in a theatre. B is okay; people’s opinions could differ on the comparability of her performance to Meryl Streep’s acting. Not C; the case is not looking good for the reasons just stated.
- In Singapore, Maureen tweets that Mimi has the coronavirus. Which is true?
A. Mimi must prove monetary damages in order to prevail in a libel case
B. Mimi must prove defamation, identification and publication to initiate an action for libel
C. Both of the above
D. None of the above
It’s B; this is the standard burden of proof in a defamation case. Not A; proving monetary damages is a requirement in slander cases, not libel cases like this.
- In the courtroom during Maureen’s trial for defaming Mimi by saying she has the coronavirus (1st statement), Maureen says that Mimi also has SARS (2nd statement). Which is true?
A. Mimi is likely to prevail in an action for slander if she can prove monetary damages from the 2nd statement
B. Maureen has a form of privilege that protects the 2nd statement
C. If Maureen said the 2nd statement out of malice, she will lose the form of privilege that she is otherwise eligible for
D. At least two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s B; Maureen has the privilege in the courtroom; thus A is incorrect. Not C; in the courtroom, the privilege holds even when a statement is said with malice.
- If The New Paper (Singapore) fairly and accurately reports, without malice, that Maureen stated in court that Mimi has SARS,
A. TNP is likely to be able take advantage of a form of the privilege
B. Mimi is likely to prevail in a case against TNP for defamation if she doesn’t have SARS
C. TNP can only prevail if it can prove that Mimi has SARS
D. only two of the above
E. none of the above
It’s A, and thus not B. Not C; what makes the privilege a powerful tool is that it allows fair, accurate, non-malicious reporting of allegations, even if those allegations are not provably true.
- Taylor Swift released her album “Lover”. Singapore vlogger Vanessa, who documents her daily life in her videos, listens to it and says in a video, “Count me a hater. Boring tunes with immature lyrics. Especially the title song”. Swift’s lawyers threaten a swift libel suit in Singapore. Vanessa most likely has which defence?
A. Justification
B. Privilege
C. Fair comment
D. All of the above
E. None of the above
It’s C. People can differ on what’s boring and immature—those are statements of opinion, not statements of fact that could qualify for a justification defence (not A). No privileged occasion here (not B)—privilege rarely works for media, and there’s no reason to believe bloggers will fare any better.
- A minister announces on the floor of Singapore’s Parliament that she is waiving the privilege to criticise “the opposition’s nepotism problem”, which she goes on to explain. Which is true?
A. The minister is immune from a defamation suit
B. An opposition politician may be able to sue the minister for defamation for her words
C. The Straits Times can report the Minister’s words the next day—however it chooses—without any possibility of facing liability for defamation
D. Only two of the above
E. None of the above
It’s B, not A; the minister has waived the usually available privilege that gives her immunity for words in Parliament, so she can be sued. Not C; the privilege that the newspaper enjoys requires fair, accurate and non-malicious reporting.
- Dido and Aeneas are former lovers whose relationship ended badly. Dido later writes a novel that earns mostly rave reviews, but Aeneas writes a negative review of her book that is published in a literary magazine, saying that it is “lacking” because of its “amateurish” style and “frivolous” subject matter. Which is true?
A. The quoted words appear to be in the category of comment
B. The history between Dido and Aeneas may make it harder for Aeneas to succeed in a fair comment defence
C. Dido can’t sue about the review because Aeneas’ words are about the book, not her
D. All of the above
E. Only two of the above
It’s E. A is okay; the words refer to matters about which people might hold different opinions. B is okay; the history might support a finding of Aeneas’ malice. Not C; there is no such restriction.
