Half-Truth in Online Commentary from a Non-Defamatory Perspective

Abstract

Online commentary has gone mainstream on the internet where potentially defamatory material can be shared widely and quickly. This article examines the mechanism of half-truth in online publications and draws a clear distinction between protected opinion and defamatory falsehoods made with the intent to harm one’s reputation. Half-truth is not specifically governed by the Defamation Act 1957, however, defamation analysis is a kind of narrative construction determining all the context, omissions and implications in a way that influences their audience. Everyone has a right to express their own opinion openly and honestly without malice. This article suggests reform and provides clearer guidance on limits of defending protected opinion statements from a non-defamatory perspective. The key is where a statement that was true when made does not become a misleading half-truth simply because circumstances later changed, provided the speaker had no actual knowledge of those changes at the time of publication. It is recommended that the half-truth statements should be recognised as a distinct category in defamation law by creating a specific provision under the Defamation Act 1957 with clear criteria, thereby safeguarding honest digital speech and providing a clear guidance on the limits of protected opinion statements from non-defamatory perspective.