What can substitute for proof of harm in defamation cases?

• A. Defamation per se.
• B. Privilege.
• C. Truth.
• D. Consent.

Answer: (A)

In defamation law, some statements are considered defamatory on their face, so the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove actual harm to recover. This is called defamation per se. When a statement falls into this category—such as imputing a crime, professional incompetence or unfitness, a loathsome disease, or immoral conduct—the law presumes that harm has occurred. Because harm is presumed, the plaintiff can obtain damages without showing proof of specific injuries, and this effectively substitutes for proving harm.

The other options don’t fit this role. Privilege can shield a defendant from liability, but it’s a defense, not a replacement for showing harm. Truth is a complete defense to defamation—if the statement is true, there’s no liability regardless of harm. Consent likewise operates as a defense—the plaintiff agreed to the publication. So they don’t substitute for the required proof of harm in the same way defamation per se does.