Is this statement defamation?

Question

"I think it sends out a devastating message that if you want to do big business, don't do it in the north-east of Scotland."

This was said to a reporter and on camera and on the news. It was said after the local council refused permission to build a golf course.

"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

Isn't it damaging though? And does this mean it is ok to make potentially damaging statements if you word it correctly or put I think on the front?

Toodeemo, I'm not trying to win any argument, as I expect is apparent I'm trying to find an answer to a question.

Because I was wondering when I heard that on the news, the way I heard it was "If you want to do big business, don't do it in the north east of scotland."

It's not sending out that message and by saying it is sending out that message it is potentially damaging to the north east of Scotland.

This is just my opinion.

Answer 1

This is about Donald Trump, and yes he has been refused permission to build in Scotland. A good thing too, it would have destroyed the sand dunes and local habitat of many species.
This is a victory for Scotland, we like our country just the way it is, without Americans coming here thinking they can buy it.

Answer 2

Defamation is a PERSONAL tort. You cannot defame a country. You can defame a person or entity defined as a person for legal purposes, such as a corporation or business. Heres a hint. Dont try to win arguments about legalities by quoting wikepedia. Here is a basic definition:

According to Black's Law Dictionary, defamation is "an intentional false communication either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name". Traditionally, defamation was a simple tort (civil wrong) requiring that the statement was false and that it was harmful.It was composed of one of two types: libel (written defamation) and slander (oral defamation). In libel, the damages were presumed because of the "permanency of the writing." In most slander cases, specific damages had to be pleaded.

Today, the rules are more complex. In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that defamation has some constitutional protection. Under the rationale of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court altered the standard to require an additional element of "malice" if the person claiming defamation is a "public figure." Malice is defined as a statement made with knowledge of its falsity or a "reckless disregard" for its truth. If the person is not a "public figure," then state law applies. A public figure is someone who has achieved fame or notoriety within the community.

Since most athletes, coaches and owners are public figures, the New York Times standard applies. Defamation has risen as a balance between Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Individual.Since professional athletes are not considered private citizens but rather "public figures", their actions including their private life may lawfully be the subject of public criticism. Applying this standard is often difficult for juries because of the concept of defining malice. Often jury awards are reversed on appeal because the jury did not properly apply the law.

The rise of sports talk radio has lead to more cases of defamation by athletes. Eric Lindros threatened to sue a Philadelphia station for remarks that accused him of "drinking in a public place the night before [a] game, had shown up with a hangover, and had been suspended for the game by the club." (click here for more information).

Defamation law runs counter to the old child's saying of "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never harm you." Indeed words can be very harmful and those harmed need legal protection. But on the other hand, defamation cannot be used to restrict first amendment rights.

EDIT: OK. Argument or debate or whatever. Wikepedia is not a source of reliable knowledge for any subject, let alone the law.

Answer 3

How many golf courses are their in the council area? That is the question, of course if it was going to be exclusive then I would think that the local people have a right to reject the application and tough on the company. We have too many rights for large business that ride roughshod over the local people, like housing planning that the government is forcing through especially where they do not control the local council.
All I can say is good for the locals in this case.

Answer 4

No. It sounds like an opinion on an issue of public concern. If there is a controversy, people can read it as one's opinion, not a material fact. Defamation is something that is provably false and said about someone that would be malicious and hateful. The language and context don't seem to fit the definition of defamation/libel/slander.

The "I think" portion makes it look like an opinion and the fact that it is about a municipal matter means that it was probably contoversial.

Answer 5

This isn't defamation any more than Trump's development plan is just a golf course (it's a 500 home executive housing estate, 450 holiday homes, and a 450-room hotel too: he himself says "you can't pay for it with just a golf course").

It is fair comment because the speaker makes it clear it's their interpretation of what someone else is saying or doing.
After all, if I say "Osama bin Laden is sending out the message that Muslims should kill Westerners", that doesn't mean *I* think that Muslims should kill Westerners, does it?

Answer 6

No, I think that it sounds like a business man who has been thwarted in getting what he wants.

If I were thinking of operating out of North east Scotland I would get all my facts in place before I started up on the official paper chase and I hope I would be more gracious were I turned down.

Answer 7

If the person making the statement was a member of big business, and that is the message he received, it is not false and therefor not defamation.

Answer 8

No, A persons name is a thing of value see Jameel etc. North east scotland is too vague.

Answer 9

I am under the impression that only a specific person or company can be defamed, not a general area.

Answer 10

It may be true or untrue but it is only an expression of opinion and does not constitute defamation