[fauldsh]

I have no real knowledge of the law. But I thought it was more along the lines of, you have to have sufficient evidence. If it transpires you were wrong you're ok as long as you had good reason to think it was true.

I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now.

[mootothemax]

I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now.

I came across the following basic explanation a while ago, seems like a pretty decent write-up:

There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken.

In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!

For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.

Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.

Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC).

Continued here:

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html

[excuse-me]

Similarly truth isn't an absolute defence. If I stated a particular politician was gay or had an abortion, every time my publication mentioned them - even if that was true - then if it was done purely malicously, ie. it had nothing to do with the article, that could be slander/libel.

There are exceptions for reporting legal judgements, which is why its important to always refer to the convicted liar Jeffery Archer

[true_religion]

I'm really straining to see how you can be slandered by the fact of your sexuality.

[DanBC]

Historically some people wanted to keep their sexuality private because they felt they might lose sales / votes / whatever if people knew their sexuality.

Don't forget that homosexuality has only relatively recently become legal in England.

The Jason Donovan case is particularly interesting.

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sad-about-the-boy-1270092....)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Donovan)

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/17/law.claredyer)

[excuse-me]

Hopefully these days you couldn't be because nobody should care.

But if you were running say a local paper and you went out of your way to consistently describe a local politician or school teacher/principal as "the homosexual Mr Smith" and your intentions were malicious they could have a reasonable chance of damages from you.