代写论文：案例分析
在这种情况下，它意味着声明背后的真相。被告应提供切实的证据，以确保他们提出的要求是正确的。法院在作出裁决时不考虑任何其他因素。如果它被证明是正确的，那么法院认为被告的主张是有效的。在本案中，我们发现盛先生所作的声明并无真正效力。它似乎只是在诋毁王的名字。他们都是社会上有权势的成员，应该有一些证据来证明Shing的说法是正确的。在没有证据的情况下，没有一味的指责，反而使成的名字在这个过程中被诬蔑。法院根据向他们提出的具体证据作出决定。当务之急是在社区内的诽谤和言论自由之间取得平衡。如果某个特定实体采取了犯罪行为，并且有能力造成损害，就需要警告公众。确保媒体让人们意识到自己的责任是媒体的受托责任。诽谤法、诽谤诉讼是言论自由和散布有关某人的恶意谣言行为的因素。
在指控某人或作出指控的情况下，应该有事实的真实性。这应该是合理的，应该有充分的证据证明这些指控(帕克斯53)。在向较大的公共媒体发表讲话时，各方必须在向公众提供信息之前进行某种程度的尽职调查。必须加以分析的一项重要考虑是，所提出的指控是否属实，而不应因为另一个人受到相当大的伤害。在对某人进行指控的情况下，法院将考虑个人在提出指控时的看法。他们应该为社会的更大利益而行动，也不应该出于个人报复。即使存在个人报复，如果被告能够向法院证明所作的指控确实属实，那么法院将驳回这些案件。为此，应该有适当的媒体管理，以确保在这种情况下人民的权利得到保护(希尔15)。
代写论文：案例分析
In this case it means the truth behind the claims. There should be tangible proof made by the defendant to ensure that they had made the right claims. Courts do not factor in any other factors when making the determination. If it has been proven true then the courts consider the defendant claim to be valid. It has been found in this case there is no real validity to the claims made by Shing. It only seems to malign the name of Wong. They are both powerful members in the society there should have been some proof that should have been shown by Shing to validate the claims. Instead of blindly accusing without the proof it only caused Shing’s name to be maligned in the process. Courts make a determination based on the tangible proof that has been submitted towards them. It is imperative that there should be a balance between libel and freedom of speech in the communities. If there is criminal actions undertaken by a specific entity and if they are capable of causing damage the public needs to be warned. It is the fiduciary duty of the media to ensure that they make people aware of their responsibilities. Libel laws, Defamation lawsuits factor in the freedom of speech and the act of spreading malignant rumors about someone.
There should be veracity of truth in the case of accusing someone or making allegations. It should be justified and there should be ample proof for these allegations (Parkes 53). While addressing the larger public media, some sort of due diligence must be conducted by the parties prior to presenting information to the public. An important consideration that must be analyzed is if there is any truth in the allegations made and it should not because the other person considerable harm.In the case of making accusations about someone, the courts will consider what the perception the individual held while making the allegations. They should have acted for the greater good of the community and also should not have acted out of personal vengeance. Even if there is personal vengeance if the defendant is able to prove to the courts that the allegations made were indeed true then the courts will dismiss the cases. For this there should be proper media governance to ensure that the rights of the people are protected in this situation (Hill 15).