You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 107.22.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 10:02, 6 September 2024.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Tks4Fish‬. The reason given is Open Proxy/Webhost: Contact stewards if you are affected. .
- Start of block: 04:23, 17 February 2021
- Expiry of block: 04:23, 17 February 2024
Your current IP address is 107.22.152.214. The blocked range is 107.22.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Short description|Legal term))
((more citations needed|date=September 2016))
((Tort law))
'''Fair comment''' is a [[legal term]] for a [[common law]] defense in [[defamation]] cases ([[libel]] or [[slander]]). It is referred to as '''honest comment''' in some countries.

==United States==
In the [[United States]], the traditional privilege (inherited from [[British common law]])  of "fair comment" is seen as a protection for robust, even outrageous published or spoken opinions about public officials and [[public figure]]s. Fair comment is defined as a "common law defense [that] guarantees the freedom of the press to express statements on matters of public interest, as long as the statements are not made with ill will, spite, or with the intent to harm the plaintiff".<ref>((cite web|url=http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html|title=Definition|publisher=University of Houston |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050830085000/http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/definition.html |archive-date=2005-08-30))</ref>

The defense of "fair comment" in the U.S. since 1964 has largely been replaced by the ruling in ''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'', 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This case relied on the issue of [[actual malice]], which involves the defendant making a statement known at the time to be false, or which was made with a "reckless disregard" of whether the statement was true or false. If "actual malice" cannot be shown, the defense of "fair comment" is then superseded by the broader protection of the failure by the plaintiff to show "actual malice".

Each state writes its own laws of [[defamation]], and the laws and previously decided precedents in each state vary. In many states, (including Alabama where the case of ''Times v. Sullivan'' originated), the "fair comment" defense requires that the "privilege of 'fair comment' for expressions of opinion depends on the truth of the facts upon which the comment is based" according to U.S Supreme Court Justice Brennan who wrote the ruling in ''Times v. Sullivan''.<ref>((cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254|title=FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.|publisher=))</ref>

"Actual malice" removes the requirement of being faultless in the reporting of the facts by the defendant. (Under the law prior to this decision any false statement could, if found to be defamatory, be grounds for damages.) Instead it raises the question of whether factual errors were made in good faith. "Actual malice" means then that the defendant intentionally made false statements of alleged facts, or recklessly failed to verify alleged facts when any reasonable person would have checked. If it is held that the defendant made intentionally false statements of fact, that will form a powerful argument that any statements of opinion based upon those facts were made with malice. If the plaintiff can prove malice on the part of the defendant the common law defense of "fair comment" is defeated.

The "actual malice" standard only applies when the statement is about a "public official", or a "public figure", or in some cases about a "matter of public interest". When it does apply it offers so much more protection to the defendant that it would be very rare for the defendant to assert "fair comment" instead. When the allegedly defamatory statement is about a purely private person, who is not a "public figure" in any way, the defendant may need to resort to the defense of "fair comment" instead.

==Canada==

In [[Canada]], for something to constitute fair comment, the comment must be on a matter of public interest (excluding gossip), based on known and provable facts, must be an opinion that any person is capable of holding based on those facts, and with no actual malice underlying it. The cardinal test of whether a statement is fair comment is whether it is recognizable as an opinion rather than a statement of fact, and whether it could be drawn from the known facts. There was formerly a rule stating that the opinion must be honestly held by the publisher (See [[Chernesky v. Armadale Publications Ltd.]] [1978] 6 W.W.R. 618 (S.C.C.)) but this rule was changed to one requiring that the opinion is capable of being held by anyone. (See [[Rafe Mair v. Kari Simpson]] [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420)

==United Kingdom==

Fletcher-Moulton LJ said in Hunt v Star Newspaper [1908] 2 KB 309, Tab 3, at 319-320, CA:

((quote|“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.”))

In Branson v Bower [2002] QB 737, at p 748, para 29, Eady J said:

((quote|“The comment must be upon ‘facts truly stated’
[29] A commentator must not deliberately distort the true situation. That would be relevant on "malice" even according to Lord Nicholls's criterion. It would not be honest. The matter of distortion (whether dishonest or otherwise) may also come into play, however, at the stage of the objective test, because one cannot decide whether a hypothetical commentator could hold an opinion in a vacuum. Even at this point, it is surely necessary to test the matter against some factual assumptions.” ))

Whether the comment is fair, Diplock J (as Lord Diplock then was) said in a summing up to jury in Silkin v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd. and Another [1958] 1 WLR 743, Tab 5, at 749:

((quote|“Would a fair-minded man holding strong views, obstinate views, prejudiced views, have been capable of making this comment? If the answer to that is yes, then your verdict in this case should be a verdict for the defendants. … If you were to take the view that it was so strong a comment that no fair-minded man could honestly have made it, then the defence fails and you would have to consider the question of damages.”))

In relation to malice in the context of fair comment (which is different from the malice in the context of qualified privilege), Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead NPJ said in Albert Cheng v Tse Wai Chun (2000) 3 HKCFAR 339 at p 360I to 361D:

((quote|“My conclusion on the authorities is that, for the most part, the relevant judicial statements are consistent with the views which I have expressed as a matter of principle. To summarise, in my view a comment which falls within the objective limits of the defence of fair comment can lose its immunity only by proof that the defendant did not genuinely hold the view he expressed. Honesty of belief is the touchstone. 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. However, proof of such motivation may be evidence, sometimes compelling evidence, from which lack of genuine belief in the view expressed may be inferred. Proof of motivation may also be relevant on other issues in the action, such as damages.

It is said that this view of the law would have the undesirable consequence that malice would bear different meanings in the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege, and that this would inevitably cause difficulty for juries. I agree that if the term 'malice' were used, there might be a risk of confusion. The answer lies in shunning that word altogether. Juries can be instructed, regarding fair comment, that the defence is defeated by proof that the defendant did not genuinely believe the opinion he expressed. Regarding qualified privilege, juries can be directed that the defence is defeated by proof that the defendant used the occasion for some purpose other than that for which the occasion was privileged. This direction can be elaborated in a manner appropriate to the facts and issues in the case.”))

The common law defence of fair comment in an action for defamation was abolished in England and Wales by the [[Defamation Act 2013]], replaced with the statutory defence of honest opinion.

== References ==
((Reflist))

==External links==
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050306234230/http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=723&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C dictionary law.com]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20050406091010/http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/defense.html Media Libel] [[University of Houston]]
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=376&invol=254 Opinion: "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'']

==Further reading==
*Crawford, Michael G. ''The Journalist's Legal Guide'', Carswell, 2002

[[Category:Legal terminology]]
[[Category:Defamation]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Fair comment (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Law sidebar style/styles.css (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Normalwraplink (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Quote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Tort law (edit)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/l (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Redirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Fair comment.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_comment"