Which of the following is listed as a defense or privilege to defamation?

• A. Truth, consent, humor/parody/satire, judicial/legislative/executive proceedings, clear opinions, fair comment/criticism, and constitutional privilege.
• B. A confession by the defamed person.
• C. Anonymous publication only.
• D. There are no defenses.

Answer: (A)

Defamation defenses are rules that protect speech even when it harms someone’s reputation. The best answer lists several widely recognized defenses and privileges. Truth is a complete defense because if what was published is substantially true, it cannot be defaming. Consent means the person harmed agreed to the publication, so liability may be avoided. Humor, parody, and satire can be protected because they present ideas in a way that resembles commentary rather than asserting plain facts. In official contexts, statements made in judicial, legislative, or executive proceedings enjoy absolute privilege, so those remarks are shielded from defamation claims. When a statement is clearly an opinion—not a factual assertion—it’s less likely to be treated as defamation. Fair comment or criticism protects commentary about matters of public interest or about public figures, as long as it is grounded in fact and not made with malice. Constitutional privilege reflects protections under the First Amendment, which limits liability for speech on public issues.

The other options don’t fit: a confession by the defamed person isn’t a defense for the speaker, since liability hinges on what was said by the speaker, not what the plaintiff admits; anonymous publication isn’t itself a defense to defamation; and there are defenses, so claiming there are none is incorrect.