Is harassment a more attractive cause of action than defamation in the internet age, asks Athelstane Aamodt
It used to be so much simpler. If someone published something untrue and damaging about somebody else, the cause of action was obvious: defamation. The problem with the law of defamation is that is has limitations. For starters, the law of defamation is extremely complicated. Also, defamation is only concerned with publications. The intention, intensity, frequency, and method of publication is relevant to the question of damages, but the larger questions that a court asks are broadly the same:
- Does the statement refer to the claimant?
- Is the statement capable of being defamatory?
- If the statement is capable of being defamatory, can the defendant avail itself of any of the defences available to it, eg truth, honest opinion, etc.
- If the claimant wins, what amount of damages should be awarded?
What happens, however, if in addition to making defamatory statements, a person engages in a broader campaign against someone else? Hate mail, trolling on Twitter, silent phone-calls: all of these are the modus operandi of
