Freedom Of Speech In Your Country

[Martinus]

Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).

Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law.  The trouble is it's the most difficult defence.  On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.

In US law the truth of a libel (or slander) is an absolute defense.  The problem, as you alluded too, is that it's an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proving the truth of the statement falls on the defendent.

There's not a general requirement that a statement in a paper be in the public interest or such.  However, even if one is protected from libel or slander charges by being able to prove the truth of a statement, it's possible that one may be sued for invasion of privacy or the like, if the person the statement was about isn't a public figure of some sort.  For example, take the case of John Edwards.  He ran for President--there's no doubt that he's a public figure of national note--and there's pretty much irrefutable evidence that he cheated on his wife, so a newpaper--say USA Today--won't have face any liability if they print that he committed adultery.  On the other hand, lemonjello, while he has admitted here that he has cheated on his wife, and is a successful attorney, probably isn't a public figure on a national scale, so USA Today, while they couldn't successfully be sued for libel if they found out his real name and ran a story saying that he had committed adultery because they could use his posts on Languish to prove the truth of the claim, might be able to be sued successfully for invading his privacy.  However, he probably is a public figure in the city where he lives, so a local newspaper there would probably not have to worry about an invasion of privacy suit, either.

Ok so the end effect is similar I guess.

[crazy canuck]

You're not defaming someone if it's true.  If the statement's true then the defendant's been entirely exonerated, with a couple of exceptions, so motive doesn't matter.

A little nit pick.  The truth of a statement does not make it any less defamatory.  Truth provides a defence to an action in defamation not because the statement being true makes the statement less damaging to the person but because the statement is justified.  So although the person suffered damage as a result of the statement he can not recover those damages from the person who made the true statement.