In Defence of Myself

[jem]

SECTION 7 DEFAMATION

Introduction

21.7.1 The objectives of the tort of defamation are, on the one hand, to protect personal reputation and, on the other, to ensure that the right of free speech and public communication are not unduly compromised. Within the tort of defamation, these competing interests and rights have to be judiciously balanced.

21.7.2 There are two forms of defamation: libel (words in permanent form) and slander (words in temporal or transient form). Libel is actionable per se without proof of special damage whilst slander would require such proof, unless specific common law and statutory exceptions apply. For example, special damage is not required to be proved in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on at the time of the publication (see section 5 of the Defamation Act).

21.7.3 Apart from the civil tort of defamation, section 499 of the Penal Code provides for the offence of criminal defamation. For the prosecution of such an offence, it must be shown that the accused made the publication with the intention to harm the reputation of the defamed person, or knows or has reason to believe that such harm would result. The focus of this section is, however, on the civil tort of defamation.

The Elements of the Cause of Action

21.7.4 The three main requirements for a cause of action under the tort of defamation are as follows:

(a) The statement must be defamatory in nature;

( The statement must refer to the plaintiff; and

© The statement must be published.

(a) Defamatory in Nature

21.7.5 A statement is defamatory in nature if it lowers the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society or causes him or her to be shunned or avoided. This is based on the objective reasonable man test. The judge determines whether the test is satisfied in a particular case upon hearing the evidence adduced at the trial. There are no jury trials in Singapore.

21.7.6 In terms of construction, a statement may be defamatory in two ways: (i) via the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used or as may be reasonably inferred from the words; and (ii) by way of true or legal innuendo. True innuendo arises from words which appear innocuous, but may be understood to be disparaging of the plaintiff by third parties who have knowledge of special facts which are not generally known. To support a cause of action based on true innuendo, the plaintiff will have to plead those special facts known to such third parties to whom the statement has been published.

( Reference to Plaintiff

21.7.7 The plaintiff must show that the third party would reasonably understand the defamatory words to refer to the former. The intention of the defendant to defame the plaintiff is not a prerequisite. Thus, the defamation action may still succeed notwithstanding that the defendant did not intend to refer to the plaintiff, but to some other person or even a fictitious character bearing the same name.

21.7.8 Apart from natural persons, legal persons such as incorporated bodies (including companies) and some unincorporated bodies (for example, societies registered under the Societies Act, Cap 311, 1985 Rev Ed with the capacity to sue and be sued in its own name) may also bring defamation actions against persons who have made defamatory statements adversely affecting their commercial, trading or governing reputations.

21.7.9 In class or group defamation actions, the issue is whether the defamatory statement, though targeted at a class or group, is nonetheless reasonably understood by the reasonable third party to refer to the individual claimant. To ascertain whether such reference exists, criteria such as the group size, the generality and extravagance of the defamatory statement and other factors may be taken into consideration.

© Publication

21.7.10 The defamatory statement must have been communicated to third parties who would reasonably understand the statement to be defamatory of the plaintiff. Thus, the communication of the defamatory statement to the plaintiff alone would not be sufficient.

Defences: (a) Justification

21.7.11 The plaintiff is not required to prove that the defamatory statement is false. Instead, the defendant may establish the defence of justification by proving that the defamatory statement is true in substance and in fact. Where the allegedly defamatory statement is a comment, both the facts on which the comment is based and the comment itself must be substantiated. Similarly, where an innuendo is pleaded, both the statement and the innuendo have to be justified. Particulars of the statement(s) of fact and the true facts relied upon by the defendant must be pleaded (Order 78 Rule 3(2), Rules of Court). The defendant is not required to substantiate every charge so long as the unsubstantiated charges do not materially injure the plaintiff’s reputation (see section 8 of the Defamation Act). The defence of justification normally constitutes a complete defence against the plaintiff’s claims.

( Fair Comment

21.7.12 To succeed in the defence of fair comment, the defendant has to show that

(i) the words complained of are in the nature of a comment (that is, an expression of opinion as opposed to facts);

(ii) the comment is based on true facts – it is not necessary to prove the truth of all allegations of facts but only those facts alleged or referred to in the defamatory words which form the basis of the opinion (see section 9 of the Defamation Act);

(iii) the comment is fair, that is, it must be an honestly-held opinion of a fair-minded person though some allowance may be given for prejudices and exaggeration; and

(iv) the comment relates to a matter of public interest, that is, a matter which the public at large may legitimately be interested in or concerned with.

21.7.13 The defence of fair comment will not succeed if the defendant’s comments are motivated by malice. An opinion is made maliciously if it is shown that the defendent did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Actuation by spite, animosity, intent to injure, intent to arouse controversy or other motivation, whatever it may be, even if it is the dominant or sole motive, does not of itself defeat the defence (see paragraph 21.7.14).

© Privilege

21.7.14 The next defence against the plaintiff’s claim in defamation is based on the concept of privilege. There are two types of privilege: absolute and qualified privilege. Absolute privilege cannot be defeated by the plaintiff’s proof that the defendant’s statements were motivated by malice. On the other hand, qualified privilege can be defeated by proof of malice. A statement is made maliciously if it was actuated by dominant improper motive(s). In addition, a statement which is made without belief in its truth or recklessly (that is, with indifference to its truth or falsity) is one that is published with malice.

Absolute Privilege

21.7.15 Absolute privilege arises in the following situations or circumstances:

(i) Parliamentary proceedings – the Members of Parliament are conferred immunity from both civil and criminal actions in respect of defamatory statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings (see section 6 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, Cap 217, 2000 Rev Ed). Similarly, the reports, papers and journals relating to the proceedings the publication of which is authorised by Parliament are immune (see section 7 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act).

(ii) Judicial proceedings – immunity is conferred on the judges, counsels, witnesses and parties in respect of statements made in the course of or for the purposes of judicial proceedings, including proceedings conducted by tribunals and bodies recognised by law and acting judicially. The fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of judicial proceedings which are publicly heard is also absolutely privileged (section 11 of the Defamation Act). This privilege extends to a ‘fair and bona fide’ comment on such report.

(iii) Executive matters – this generally covers communications made by ministers and civil servants relating to state affairs.

Qualified Privilege

21.7.16 The defence of qualified privilege arises in the following instances:

(i) Where the defendant has an interest or duty to communicate information and the third party has the corresponding interest or duty to receive the information – for instance, communications made by solicitors for the purposes of advancing clients’ interests and communications between employers and employees in relation to work matters are ordinarily accorded qualified privilege.

(ii) Where the defendant makes a statement with a view to protect his or her self-interests (such as when he

or she is responding to accusations), such statements are privileged to the extent that they are published bona fide as well as relevant and necessary to protect such interests.

(iii) Where reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings are fair and accurate, qualified privilege arises at common law (that is, outside the scope of the statutory provisions). Newspaper reports of parliamentary and judicial proceedings in the Commonwealth are also accorded qualified privilege statutorily (section 12 of the Defamation Act).

(d) Innocent Dissemination

21.7.17 The defence of innocent dissemination is generally available to intermediaries such as retail vendors, libraries and delivery agents. To avail of such a defence, the intermediary who participated in the distribution of the defamatory statements must show that he or she did not know that the publication was libellous, the circumstances or work could not have alerted the defendant to the libellous content and that such ignorance was not due to his or her negligence.

(e) Offer of Amends

21.7.18 The Offer of Amends is a procedure which permits a defendant to ward off a potential defamation action (or to procure, if the action has already commenced, its discontinuation thereof). The defendant has to first show that he or she has ‘innocently’ defamed another person and exercised all reasonable care in relation to the publication. The defendant must also offer to make a public apology and to take reasonably practicable steps to inform the persons who have been distributed with the copies of the publication that the contents are defamatory of the aggrieved party. The Offer of Amends constitutes a defence against any defamation action by the aggrieved party. If the offer is accepted by the aggrieved party and its terms are complied with by the defendant, the aggrieved party is precluded from suing the defendant in respect of the defamatory publication (see section 7 of the Defamation Act).

(f) Assent by Plaintiff

21.7.19 Where the plaintiff had clearly and unequivocally assented to the publication of the defamatory statement, that constitutes a valid defence to the defamation action.

Remedies

21.7.20 A plaintiff who has successfully established a cause of action in defamation against which there are no valid defences may obtain (a) monetary damages; and/or ( injunctions restraining the publication, and/or © in exceptional circumstances, injunctions mandating that the defendant withdraw the defamatory statement.

Damages

21.7.21 Damages are awarded to vindicate the reputation of the plaintiff. The gravity of the statement, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of the publication and the effect of the publication on the plaintiff are factors to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the quantum of the damages. In this regard, the awards in personal injury cases do not provide a helpful guide. The plaintiff has to prove that he or she suffered special damage, except in cases of libel or certain forms of slander (see Section 21.7.2above). Whilst the principles of causation and remoteness are applicable in defamation, the quantification of special damages is not, however, an exact science.

Aggravated Damages

21.7.22 Aggravated damages may be awarded in appropriate cases. Aggravated damages, which are compensatory in nature, may be awarded in respect of the additional injury caused by the defendant’s conduct or bad motives. For purposes of ascertaining damages, the plaintiff is required to give full particulars in the statement of claim of the details of any conduct by the defendant which has allegedly increased the injury suffered (Order 78 Rule 3(3A), Rules of Court). However, the amounts for both general compensatory and aggravated damages (if any) are awarded to the plaintiff in one lump sum.

Exemplary Damages

21.7.23 Exemplary or punitive damages are less common. Nonetheless, exemplary damages may be awarded as a deterrent measure where the defendant had published the defamatory statement in the expectation of profit or gain and was aware that the publication was untrue.

Mitigation

21.7.24 The defendant may make or offer an apology with a view to mitigating damages (see section 10 of the Defamation Act). Similarly, an undertaking by the defendant not to republish would generally go towards the mitigation of damages.

Injunctions

21.7.25 Injunctions are usually granted to prevent the future publication of defamatory materials only where such further publication is reasonably apprehended. The courts are generally more cautious of issuing interlocutory injunctions, and will do so only where it is clear that the words complained of were libellous and no defence could possibly apply.

Internet Defamation

21.7.26 With the advent of technology, globalisation and rise in the usage of the Internet, defamation in cyberspace is a real issue today. This problem, though not unique to Singapore, can have a significant impact considering the high proportion of Internet usage within the country for private, commercial and public purposes.

Internet Service Providers

21.7.27 With respect to the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), section 10 of the Electronic Transactions Act protects an ISP from liability arising from the making, publication, dissemination or distribution of third party materials, if the ISP were merely providing access to such materials. A third party refers, in this context, to a person over which the ISP has no effective control.

[thegrinch]

JimmiPaige please be clear on what are u trying to say " settle outside ...? Pm ur number ....? " What do u mean exactly

Well Jem Pls dont play this childish games of bring ur fellow reefers into this alrite kid

[jamesssss]

Well jamesssss yeah i agree but now its abt a rude sms that lil kid send so yeah

hi thegrinch, if u think jem was being rude with his statement or whatsoever... then i think u are actually doing the same things also. so wat's the different between a kid n a "Adult" like u??

[VelvetAirwaves]

aiya we all screw up abit here and there one mah, you wanna sue him for defamation ah? lol nvm la, rough dealings impossible to avoid if you wanna do trades

[thegrinch]

Jem PLease Tell me you want PLAY A game of law Cos i got one next to me now !!!

So we go to court and see how this turns out ...?

[jem]

lol.. okay..

had enough..

goodnight

happy reefing

[VelvetAirwaves]

well anyways , its abit late for the most of src to see this post anyhow , probably needa wait till tomorrow to see who comes online to bother to take a look , bleh sure big big man. heh. thegrinch keep saying people rude , he tmd keep calling jem kid. freaking lame man.

[thegrinch]

Is that a NO

[VelvetAirwaves]

Jem PLease Tell me you want PLAY A game of law Cos i got one next to me now !!!

So we go to court and see how this turns out ...?

dude , he's not playing a game. and if this goes to court i'd really like to hear your side of the story , cause from what it seems , jem can sue you hands down man do explain yourself haha

[thegrinch]

Oh yeah rite come on pay for his lawers fees and i will see you guys there how ...?

[VelvetAirwaves]

night all , mwuackzx to thegrinch cause tomorrow i think everybody will be posting here hahahaha and jem too of course mwuacks jem more times@#$%^&*

[thegrinch]

gd night JimmiPaige'

[benteo36]

So someone even better than me, had enough pop corn then left the show

[weishun]

Where is conrad when we need him?

[foocha]

Pop corn time everybody

'Pop corn time everybody'

LOL thats a really funny comment bro!! really laughing my head off.

but 2 to parties.. no offense k. hope u guys settle this nicely.

better to have 1 more friend than 1 more enemy yah

[foocha]

Would like to share my 0.0001 cent worth of thoughts on the matter.

Selling/buying anything online is always a risk. one that all undertakes when doing so.

I believe that throughout the course of a buyer's/seller's trading life, it is inevitable to encounter

less than pleasant situations.

I also believe that everybody, to a certain extent, is guilty of being a 'pilot' ( im guilty 2! ) one time or another.

In being a seller, it is sometimes very tempting to sell to a higher/easier/friendlier buyer though other commitments

have been made to 1st buyer(ive been tempted before!)

As with practices of all business trades it is always basic knowledge to always be impartial and never personal.

In this regards, I would like to say to Bro thegrinch that Bro jem maybe young, but were you not once young too?

Continuous flaming remarks like calling him 'kid' is totally uncalled for. If you consider yourself much higher in statue in age to him then

the proper conduct would be to EDUCATE him the proper method of conducting a sale, especially since you say your area of specialty is in Sales.

To Bro Jem, I think the proper way of dealing with the manner would have been to honor your commitment via an announced reservation period, followed by an sms/email/post that reservation period has lapsed and item will be offered to next buyer. While this may not satisfy all, it is the proper way and properly documented and in accordance with proper selling ethics.

I do however find fielding this post a little uncalled for as there have been no public defamatory remarks made by bro thegrinch towards bro jem prior to this post. Also in fielding this post, bro Jem while I understand that harsh words may or may not been exchanged between the two of you in private correspondences, you are actually unknowingly/knowingly publicly attacking Bro thegrinch's online credibility and character. Hence, even though you might or might not be a victim initially, you turned into the aggressor and have to expect a spirited/heated rebuttal coming from Bro thegrinch to defend his reputation.

It would have been more prudent to post the details of the transaction WITHOUT stating names. In doing so, it would still protect buyer's interests ( in business publicly pulling down/criticizing a company's name invites a pot load of trouble), and also give Bro thegrinch the choice of whether to reveal himself and defend himself.

It should also be noted that Bro Jem seems much more active in the community and hence would probably have more friends in this forum, it could be interpreted and assumed that this post is to garner support from friends in shooting down Bro thegrinch.

I do not really think Bro thegrinch is a master pilot as he dares to post his picture on his profile. Such public sharing of personal information is not a trait of master pilots....

Having said all this, to both Bros i say live and forget. We are all here to enjoy this wonderful hobby and should not use this site/forum to conduct online attacks. If Bro Jem you could apologize for publicly questioning thegrinch and Bro thegrinch apologize for calling Bro jem a kid, all would be settled and you two could even have a cup of nice kopi, and I would honestly buy both of you the kopi ! i have some free common zoas if you guys want also??? really @@!!!!

my 0.00001 cents worth and good day to all !! hope everybody has a nice weekend going to lfs.... reborn has the most beautiful elegance i have ever seen orange tips!!.......hehe

[foocha]

Finally, to both bros, my offer for the zoas is real... pm me if you want them. 1 piece each max lah...

[spy_i]

three pages in few hours. Now that's a record.

Would like to share my 0.0001 cent worth of thoughts on the matter.

I do however find fielding this post a little uncalled for as there have been no public defamatory remarks made by bro thegrinch towards bro jem prior to this post. Also in fielding this post, bro Jem while I understand that harsh words may or may not been exchanged between the two of you in private correspondences, you are actually unknowingly/knowingly publicly attacking Bro thegrinch's online credibility and character. Hence, even though you might or might not be a victim initially, you turned into the aggressor and have to expect a spirited/heated rebuttal coming from Bro thegrinch to defend his reputation.

.......

It should also be noted that Bro Jem seems much more active in the community and hence would probably have more friends in this forum, it could be interpreted and assumed that this post is to garner support from friends in shooting down Bro thegrinch.

well said bro. Plus the zoa freebie to cool things down, I'll NOMINATE you as REEFER OF THE YEAR mr. foocha!.

[yikai]

three pages in few hours. Now that's a record.

well said bro. Plus the zoa freebie to cool things down, I'll NOMINATE you as REEFER OF THE YEAR mr. foocha!.

ya man...i spam this forum like siao also cannot pull 3 pages in a few hours

[reefer guy]

yawnn...... im gonna have brunch @ dempsey. any takers????

[yikai]

Would like to share my 0.0001 cent worth of thoughts on the matter.

Selling/buying anything online is always a risk. one that all undertakes when doing so.

I believe that throughout the course of a buyer's/seller's trading life, it is inevitable to encounter

less than pleasant situations.

I also believe that everybody, to a certain extent, is guilty of being a 'pilot' ( im guilty 2! ) one time or another.

In being a seller, it is sometimes very tempting to sell to a higher/easier/friendlier buyer though other commitments

have been made to 1st buyer(ive been tempted before!)

As with practices of all business trades it is always basic knowledge to always be impartial and never personal.

In this regards, I would like to say to Bro thegrinch that Bro jem maybe young, but were you not once young too?

Continuous flaming remarks like calling him 'kid' is totally uncalled for. If you consider yourself much higher in statue in age to him then

the proper conduct would be to EDUCATE him the proper method of conducting a sale, especially since you say your area of specialty is in Sales.

To Bro Jem, I think the proper way of dealing with the manner would have been to honor your commitment via an announced reservation period, followed by an sms/email/post that reservation period has lapsed and item will be offered to next buyer. While this may not satisfy all, it is the proper way and properly documented and in accordance with proper selling ethics.

I do however find fielding this post a little uncalled for as there have been no public defamatory remarks made by bro thegrinch towards bro jem prior to this post. Also in fielding this post, bro Jem while I understand that harsh words may or may not been exchanged between the two of you in private correspondences, you are actually unknowingly/knowingly publicly attacking Bro thegrinch's online credibility and character. Hence, even though you might or might not be a victim initially, you turned into the aggressor and have to expect a spirited/heated rebuttal coming from Bro thegrinch to defend his reputation.

It would have been more prudent to post the details of the transaction WITHOUT stating names. In doing so, it would still protect buyer's interests ( in business publicly pulling down/criticizing a company's name invites a pot load of trouble), and also give Bro thegrinch the choice of whether to reveal himself and defend himself.

It should also be noted that Bro Jem seems much more active in the community and hence would probably have more friends in this forum, it could be interpreted and assumed that this post is to garner support from friends in shooting down Bro thegrinch.

I do not really think Bro thegrinch is a master pilot as he dares to post his picture on his profile. Such public sharing of personal information is not a trait of master pilots....

Having said all this, to both Bros i say live and forget. We are all here to enjoy this wonderful hobby and should not use this site/forum to conduct online attacks. If Bro Jem you could apologize for publicly questioning thegrinch and Bro thegrinch apologize for calling Bro jem a kid, all would be settled and you two could even have a cup of nice kopi, and I would honestly buy both of you the kopi ! i have some free common zoas if you guys want also??? really @@!!!!

my 0.00001 cents worth and good day to all !! hope everybody has a nice weekend going to lfs.... reborn has the most beautiful elegance i have ever seen orange tips!!.......hehe

really, all i wanted to say have already been said here.

[wasukapangpui]

SAWATDEEKHRAP...

Welcome..

If you want CHARBO turn right,

If you want GUY turn left,

If you want to buy equipment go straight and pm,

If you want to QUARREL move you Mouse cursor to the top right hand corner and click the red cross.

Thank you. KHAM LAA (goodbye)

untitled.bmp

[Ah-lim]

* Nachos better.

[Morpheous]

SAWATDEEKHRAP...

Welcome..

If you want CHARBO turn right,

If you want GUY turn left,

If you want to buy equipment go straight and pm,

If you want to QUARREL move you Mouse cursor to the top right hand corner and click the red cross.

Thank you. KHAM LAA (goodbye)

I like ur nick and the above statement of course

Chill out and lets make this hobby an enjoyable one...

[albinosage]

Oh yeah rite come on pay for his lawers fees and i will see you guys there how ...?

Hey grinch, there you were calling Jem a "kid" and here you are making foolish empty threats. Please lah, take a step back and see how silly that statement is.

If you are as "old" and "mature" as you paint yourself to be, you would just let such a small matter go, instead of stirring up sh!t right after Jems says to everyone at 1.17am:

....to each his own..

happy reefing all the best..

i rest my case

haha benteo..

hope you dont find this fun and entertaining..

i would really love to keep this hobby open and fun..

i wouldnt want to head to a lfs and bump into someone and bear a grudge on someone i dont even know well..

for whatever it is..

i shall not pursue if there isnt any threats towards me..

chill...

At the end of the day, if Jem is just a kid or child, why are you, a self styled senior and righteous member of our society picking a bone with a small boy when he was ready to let the matter rest?