I think there is a thin line between a need to name certain people at certain times and it becoming a weapon used indiscriminately without proof. I'd prefer to see the law err on the side of caution and preserve the rights of whistle-blowers and activists with truth on their side to have a right to speak while coming down hard on people who use it maliciously.
I tend to agree here activists and whistle blowers need to be afforded the freedom to speak up with out the fear of being persecuted but it can be used as a witch hunt or to achieve various alterior motives, it's tricky.
"What happens if defamation is proved?
The originator would be held liable for all foreseeable consequences of the statement, including those flowing from republication by third parties. Those who repeat it would be liable too. Damages payable could potentially include the loss of past or future earnings as well as actual or probable damage to person or property."
Proving that damages actually occured is not a easy task because it has to be a concrete and proven loss and the claiming party has to prove that they did everything in their power to prevent the damages. They can't just sit back let it happen and then expect to claim damages.
It would be a long expensive legal process to first prove defamation and then damages so it is not a process that is easily entered into.
Sign up with Google
