The defense is desirable on the whole as it addresses gaps in the existing defenses of truth, honest opinion and the qualified privilege extension for the media. It also provides a direct and cost-saving solution for those who are unjustly attacked. However, the common law should clarify the boundaries within which the defense operates. In order to use the truth defense, the defendant must prove either the truth of any facts in the publication or that the publication taken as a whole was in substance true. While this may support a large number of defendants, it may not protect those who seek to reply to what they believe are fabricated statements. For example Bowen-Rowlands concerned a publication portraying a well-known deceased man in a …show more content…
The Courts protects the speech of the initial defamer by requiring that a plaintiff satisfy a very high threshold to obtain an injunction to stop publication of defamatory statements. As freedom of expression is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, courts do not grant injunctions unless there is no tenable defense available. Accordingly, where a person has failed to stop publication of defamatory statements, the common law is justified in protecting their freedom of expression by allowing them to respond proportionally to the statements made by their …show more content…
While in the UK, Reynolds permits the media to discuss matters of public interest under qualified privilege, the qualified privilege available to the media in this country, as developed in Lange, allows privilege only for political discussions. Therefore, if a journalist’s credibility is attacked by another media outlet, they are unable to reply under general privilege. Denigrating comments about the media can lower public faith in their work and so they should be allowed a proportionate response. While the defense is necessary, it lacks clarity as to what equates to proportional reply and what is unprotected defamation. There is conflicting authority as to how much leeway the reply is given. In Chinese Herald Ltd the Court referred to the privilege as “a shield of defence, not a weapon attack.” This suggests that the ambit of reply is restricted. However, Alexander referred to the defence as “privilege to hit back when one’s reputation is attacked.” This indicates that the reply may be given wider