To have a a defence of fair comment, five conditions must be satisfied
1) It was on a matter of public interest
2) It was recognizable as a comment and not an imputation of fact
3) It was based on facts which were true or protected by absolute privilege
4) The comment explicitly or implicitly indicated at least in general terms what the facts were on which the comment was made
5) Such comments would be made by an honest person"
1) It probably is because the school is trying to get government funding
2) Probably not. It is presented as facts...
3) The fact that the company is registered at the location is probably true
4) The comment did say that it is base on the registered location
5) Depends on how the judge define 'honest' (Or what Next Magazine have to say)
For 嚴重程度, 「正生2000萬投資雞竇」,雞竇 is a "crime punishable by imprisonment" Even if it is slander, there will be no need to show actual harm.
People may think that if they do not include the name of a person they are maligning in an article, but only give a thorough description of the person (e.g. his height and weight, the places that he frequents and the things that he had done), that person would have difficulty proving that the article refers to him.
In these circumstances, the court will consider to whom the author's original intent is referring, and whether ordinary readers will think that the author is referring to that person after reading the article. If that person's friends and others can reasonably infer that the article refers to him, then the article in question will be considered to refer to that person.
If one person speaks to another person once, this counts as one publication. When the latter repeats the same thing to yet another person, it is a second publication. The second publication is a fresh instance of defamation (if the content is defamatory). Merely quoting other people's words is regarded in law as publication. If the words are defamatory, the one who merely repeated those words is liable for defamation. No matter how many times the words are repeated, each repetition is one instance of defamation.
At common law, some protection is given to persons who are not the author, printer or the first or main publisher of defamatory materials. There is also a statutory defence under section 25(5) of the Defamation Ordinance for unintentional defamation if the defendant (i.e. the publisher) can prove that:
all reasonable care has been taken by the publisher to avoid any defamatory material in the publication; AND
Generally speaking, when defamatory materials have been left on a website by internet users, that website (or the person/company/internet service provider in charge of it) may be liable as the publisher of said defamatory materials if they take no action to remove the defamatory materials from the website .