Does a defendant have to prove truth in order to avoid liability for defamation?

In most states, including Oklahoma, in a civil defamation case a defendant must prove that the statement they made was true in order to avoid liability for defamation. This is known as the “truth defense.” Truth is an absolute defense to a civil defamation lawsuit. In Oklahoma, it’s not enough to simply show that a statement was substantially true. Instead, the defendant must be able to prove that the statement was completely accurate. Making minor mistakes or omissions won’t protect the defendant from liability. Some states have adopted an alternative form of the truth defense called the “substantial truth” defense. Under this type of defense, the defendant has to show that a statement is true in its overall meaning, even if there are small inaccuracies or omissions. However, Oklahoma has not adopted the “substantial truth” defense and the “truth defense” remains the standard for avoiding liability. Therefore, if a defendant wishes to avoid liability for a civil defamation lawsuit in Oklahoma, they must be able to prove that the statement they made was true. If the defendant is unable to do so, they may still be liable for damages.

Related FAQs

Is it possible to win a defamation lawsuit without an attorney?
Does a person have to prove actual harm in order to sue for libel?
How do defamation laws vary from state to state?
Does a person have to establish a special standard of malice to win a defamation claim?
How do you prove the public impact of a statement in a defamation case?
Can a person be liable for repeating a defamatory statement?
How do you prove damages in a defamation case?
Is a plaintiff required to show actual damages in a defamation case?
Are public officials given additional protection from defamation claims?
Are there any defenses available to an employer against a defamation claim?

Does a defendant have to prove truth in order to avoid liability for defamation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts