Basic Perception of Innuendo

Basic Perception of Innuendo

An innuendo is a statement about something combined with a qualifier about the statement. "Brand X is not dangerous," therefore, is an innuendo; it can be decomposed into a statement (Brand X is dangerous) and qualifier (This statement is false). In the series of studies reviewed here, it is found that people are remarkably insensitive to innuendo qualifiers, basing their impressions instead on innuendo statements. The conditions under which this phenomenon can promote damage to the reputations of people, organizations, or products, and the steps that may be effective in avoiding such damage, are the principal concerns of the research.

Innuendo is a legal concept that is related to tort and personal injury law. The word is derived from innuere, the Latin word that means to nod forward. In legal terms, innuendo is used in a lawsuit to describe defamation from libel or slander. It usually shows that the plaintiff had bad comments made about him and that the comments were in fact defamatory. 

The innuendo is usually just used in actions for slander. An innuendo can be only explanatory of some other matter expressed. It must also serve to apply the given slander to the precedent matter, white not enlarging, extending, or changing the idea of the previous words. Innuendo typically refers to a condition where a person explains a factual situation, yet an incorrect interpretation is derived from it.

Furthermore, the issue to which the innuendo alludes to must always show from the antecedent end of the indictment or declaration. This is needed when the intent can be mistaken, or when it cannot be obtained from the slander or libel itself. 

If the innuendo enlarges the idea of the words, it can vitiate the indictment or declaration. But if the new matter stated within an innuendo does not need to support the action, it can be rejected as surplusage. 

There are two major types of innuendo. The first is false innuendo. It is a defamatory statement made that has an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.

There is also legal innuendo. While this is not defamatory on its face, a legal innuendo statement can be defamatory when combined with certain extrinsic or outside circumstances. This contextual information may cause a statement to be considered defamatory in a certain jurisdiction while not another. 

When looking at legal precedent, strict liability rule is applied to legal innuendo. This is the standard level of liability that specifies what makes an individually legally responsible. Strict liability requires imposing liability on a particular party without finding a reason for the fault, such as tortious intent or negligence. In this situation, the defendant must have been proved to be responsible and that the torn in question did happen.

Defamation

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." The government can't imprison someone for making a defamatory statement since it is not a crime. Instead, defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law.

Elements of Defamation

1.     The statement must be published

2.     The statement must be defamatory

3.     The statement must refer to the plaintiff

Types of Defamation

1] Slander

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (harmful statement in a transient form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication.  The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.

2] Libel

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the tort of libel

Meaning of Innuendo

A statement may be prima facie defamatory and that is so when its natural and obvious meaning leads to that conclusion. Sometimes, the statement may prima facie be innocent but because of some latent or secondary meaning, it may be considered to be defamatory.

When the natural and ordinary meaning is not defamatory but the plaintiff wants to bring an action for defamation, he must prove the latent or second meaning, i.e. , the innuendo, which makes the statement defamatory. Even a statement of commendation may be defamatory in the context in which it is said. Even “Y is a saint” might be slander if the statement was understood to refer to a criminal gang known as “The Saints”.

Similarly, to say that X is an honest man and he never stole my watch may be defamatory statement if the persons to whom statement is made understand from this that X is a dishonest man having stolen the watch. The statement that a lady has given birth to a child is defamatory  when the lady is unmarried. Similarly, the statement that A is like his father may be defamatory if it is likely to convey the impression that he is a ‘cheat’ like his father.

Cases on Innuendo

The Capital and Counties Bank Limited -v- George Henty & Sons; HL 1882

The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty & Sons hereby give notice that they will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a run on the bank. The bank claimed they had been defamed.

Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. In their natural meaning the words were not capable in law of being defamatory. Lord Selborne LC said: ‘The test, according to the authorities, is, whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men, to whom the publication was made, would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense.’
It was held that there was no case to go to the jury.

V. Subair v.  P.K. Sudhakaran

The Courts below, concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 501, I.P.C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily, 'Al Ameen'. The issue of the newspaper dt. 25-8-78 carried a reportfrom Chokly (Ext. Pl(a)), that a young lady of the locality consulted a local medical practitioner for an ailment of her child, and that the physician wanted to examine her. Despite her protestations that she was in no need for medical attention, and had no money to pay for the same, she was persuaded to submit to a clinical examination. It turned to be such, that the woman had to flee from the physician to save her honour. The report goes on to say, that the medical practitioner, who was rendering free treatment on Saturdays had a weakness for comely woman and that as a result of his attentions, a woman patient was put to the necessity of an abortion.

Board Of Directors, Y.M.C.A. And ... vs R.H. Niblett

The circular became known to other persons; there was run on the bank and loss inflicted. The bank having brought an action against H. & Sons for libel, with an innuendo that the circular imputed insolvency. It was held that:

"In their natural meaning the words were not libellous: that the inference suggested by the innuendo was not the inference which reasonable persons would draw; that the onus lay on the bank to show that the circular had a libellous tendency; that the evidence, consisting of the circumstances attending the publication, failed to show it; that there was no case to go to the jury; and that the defendants were entitled to judgment".

Fox v Boulter

Facts

The Claimant, an MP and formerly the Secretary of State for Defence, complained that the Defendant, a British businessman, defamed him by an interview he gave to the broadcaster Sky. The Claimant sued in respect of a broadcast of the interview on Sky News (“the broadcast”) and the Defendant’s words as contained in a website posting at Sky News’ website (“the website article”). The broadcast contained part only of the remarks attributed to the Defendant in the interview than the website article.

The Claimant complained that the defamatory meaning of the broadcast and the website article was:

“…that reprehensibly and dishonourably, although he was uniquely in a position to do so, the Claimant had failed to speak out with the truth in order to debunk the supposedly baseless Allegations made publicly against the Defendant, the gravity and discredit of which omission was reflected by the fact that, if the Claimant did not attend court voluntarily in the United States to exonerate the Defendant, then the Claimant would be compelled by legal process to attend.”

The Claimant argued that that was the natural and ordinary meaning of the interview as it was given, particularly in the light of the general knowledge concerning the allegations made against the Defendant at the time, but additionally such a meaning arose by way of innuendo at least in the minds of interested readers who had been following the allegations made against the Defendant.

The Defendant argued that the words complained of bore no defamatory meaning, alternatively any defamatory meaning failed to pass the test for a threshold of seriousness as set out in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985. Evidence was not admissible in relation to the determination of the natural and ordinary meaning. If the Claimant needed to establish, by evidence, knowledge of particular readers, then that had to be done by proof of the innuendo meaning; it could not be done through so-called “general knowledge” to support a natural and ordinary meaning.

Held

(1) The broadcast was very short and did not convey any defamatory meaning. The Claimant’s claim in relation to the broadcast was dismissed.

(2) In assessing a natural and ordinary meaning, no evidence was admissible. “General knowledge”, were it to be relied upon, had to be in the category of what Lord Mansfield CJ in R v Horne [1775-1802] All ER Rep 390 at 393E called “matters of universal notoriety”, that is to say matters which any intelligent viewer or reader may be expected to know. Anything which required assiduous reading and a good memory so as to recall the facts of a story dating back several weeks or months cannot fall within that definition. Such knowledge of individual readers would have to be established – if it could – by evidence to support an innuendo claim.

(3) The natural and ordinary meaning of the website article was:

“… that the Claimant was in a position to give evidence to debunk the baseless allegations made publicly against the Defendant but had not done so; that although Dr Fox had previously said that he was willing to do so, Mr Boulter doubted it; and that if the Claimant did not attend court voluntarily in the United States to exonerate the Defendant, then he would be forced to do so by legal process.

(4) This meaning was sufficiently serious to qualify as defamatory under Thornton.

(5) Readers of the website publication with a more detailed knowledge of the allegations that had been made against the Defendant, as set out by the Claimant’s case on innuendo, the conclusion as to the defamatory nature of the website publication was reinforced.

(6) A claimant cannot rely on post-publication facts to support an innuendo meaning: Grappelli v Derek Block Holdings Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 822 applied.

Literal Meaning of Innuendo

Innuendo is an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.

An innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion. In the latter sense the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken literally, are innocent.

According to the Advanced Oxford Learner's Dictionary, an innuendo is "an indirect remark about somebody or something, usually suggesting something bad, mean or rude", such as: "innuendos about her private life" or "The song is full of sexual innuendo".

The term sexual innuendo has acquired a specific meaning, namely that of a "risqué"  by playing on a possibly sexual interpretation of an otherwise innocent uttering.

Conclusion

This Latin word (commonly translated "meaning") was the technical beginning of that clause iu a announcement for slander or libel in which the meaning of the alleged libelous words was explained, or the application of the language charged to the plaintiff was pointed out. Hence it gave its name to the whole clause; and this usage is still retained, although an equivalent English word is now substituted. Thus, it may be charged that the defendant said "he (meaning the said plaintiff) is a perjurer." The word is also used, (though more rarely,) in other species of pleadings, to introduce an explanation of a preceding word, charge, or averment. It is said to mean no more than the words