Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Our article currently says "This is the case in some jurisdictions, including the United States, but not in others, including England and Wales" which seems to imply in England and Wales truth is not an absolute defence in defamation cases. Is this correct? My understanding which seems to be supported by defamation is truth was an absolute defence for civil cases although under the common law defence of justification. It wasn't for criminal cases, although only technically abolished in 2009, criminal libel hadn't been used for many years. In any case, with the abolishment and combined with the Defamation Act 2013 it seems to be truth is definitely an absolute defence for any defamation occuring after the Act came in to effect. There is still a key difference with some other jurisdictions in that the defendant actually has to prove the claim is true (unlike in some other places where the plantiff has to prove it's false) but that doesn't mean truth isn't an absolute defence. See also English defamation law. Nil Einne (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply
