Defamation law offers a remedy when the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed by something the defendant publishes. At the heart of the action lies the question— what do the words complained about actually mean? The process of determining defamatory meaning depends heavily on what the court finds to be the imputations conveyed by the matter concerned to ‘ordinary, reasonable people’. The process relies on assumption and conjecture, rather than on evidence. This article examines how this process applied in the Hockey v Fairfax Media case brought by Australia’s former Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey against Fairfax Media, which presented a paradox—the court described the journalists’ articles concerned in glowing terms but still found for the plaintiff.

中文翻译：

---

诽谤意义和依赖“普通、合理的人”虚构的危害

当原告的声誉因被告发表的内容而受到损害时，诽谤法提供了一种补救措施。行动的核心是一个问题——抱怨的话实际上是什么意思？确定诽谤含义的过程在很大程度上取决于法院认定的有关事项传达给“普通、合理的人”的归责。这个过程依赖于假设和推测，而不是证据。本文研究了这一程序如何适用于澳大利亚前联邦财政部长 Joe Hockey 对 Fairfax Media 提起的 Hockey v Fairfax Media 案，该案提出了一个悖论——法院用热情洋溢的措辞描述了有关记者的文章，但仍然为原告找到了证据。