defamatory

简明释义

英[dɪˈfæmətri]美[dɪˈfæmətɔːri]

adj. 诽谤的；中伤的；破坏名誉的

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Courts often view workers' statements as disloyal when they are defamatory and are not supported by facts. Mr.

如果工人名声不好或者所说的与事实不符，法庭通常会认为工人的陈述是不实的。

2.He was to be charged with publishing a defamatory statement against the police, the paper said.

他将以发表诽谤警察的声明被指控，该报说。

3.The public prosecutor is seeking legal advice on whether the book may be defamatory.

检察机关正搜集相关法律依据，要指控此书是否已涉及诽谤。

4.Outside of the public eye, Harry's statement also revealed that the royals have been involved in "nightly legal battles to keep defamatory stories out of the papers."

哈里王子的声明中还透露了不为公众所知的信息，王室成员也被卷进来，“为阻止诽谤文章见报而每晚展开法律博弈”。

5.Questions cannot be defamatory; only statements can.

这些问题并不是诽谤。只有完整的陈述才能构成诽谤。

6.The Baghdad court delivered its judgment on Tuesday, ignoring expert testimony from three senior members of the Iraqi journalists' union that Abdul-Ahad's article was not defamatory.

巴格达的法庭在星期二作出判决，无视伊拉克新闻工作者联合会三个资深成员的专家证词，证词认为Abdul - Ahad's的文章并没有诽谤。

7.Poor Richard responded that all of these defamatory protestations indicated that the real Leeds must indeed be dead and his new almanac a hoax by someone else.

穷查理由这些诽谤性的断言指出，真正的Leeds已经死了，而这份年鉴的作者肯定是冒Leeds之名所作。

8.The article published in the newspaper was deemed defamatory 诽谤性的 by the court.

法院认为报纸上发表的文章是defamatory 诽谤性的。

9.He filed a lawsuit against his former employer for making defamatory 诽谤性的 statements about him.

他对前雇主提起诉讼，指控其发表了defamatory 诽谤性的言论。

10.The comedian faced backlash after making defamatory 诽谤性的 jokes about a public figure.

这位喜剧演员因对公众人物开了defamatory 诽谤性的玩笑而遭到强烈反对。

11.She was careful not to make any defamatory 诽谤性的 remarks during the interview.

她在面试中小心翼翼地避免发表任何defamatory 诽谤性的评论。

12.The social media post contained defamatory 诽谤性的 claims that damaged his reputation.

这条社交媒体帖子包含了对他声誉造成损害的defamatory 诽谤性的指控。

作文

In today's digital age, the spread of information is faster than ever. Social media platforms allow anyone to share their thoughts and opinions with a global audience. While this can lead to positive discussions and the exchange of ideas, it also opens the door for harmful content, including defamatory statements. Defamatory (诽谤的) remarks can have serious consequences for individuals and organizations alike. These statements can tarnish reputations, lead to emotional distress, and even result in legal action. Consider the case of a public figure who has dedicated their life to serving the community. If someone were to post a defamatory comment about them on social media, claiming they engaged in illegal activities without any evidence, it could severely impact their career and personal life. The damage caused by such defamatory (诽谤的) statements can be irreversible, as the internet allows these remarks to spread like wildfire. Once something is published online, it can be challenging to retract or clarify the information. Moreover, the legal implications of defamatory statements are significant. In many jurisdictions, individuals who make false statements that harm another person's reputation may be held liable for defamation. This means that the victim of a defamatory (诽谤的) statement can seek damages in court, which can serve as a deterrent against making false claims. However, proving defamation is not always straightforward. The burden of proof often lies with the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that the statement was false, damaging, and made with a certain level of intent. Another important aspect to consider is the role of freedom of speech. While individuals have the right to express their opinions, this right is not absolute. When an opinion crosses the line into defamatory (诽谤的) territory, it can lead to serious repercussions. It is crucial for people to understand the difference between expressing a legitimate opinion and making false statements that could harm someone’s reputation. Responsible communication is essential in maintaining a healthy discourse in society. To combat the spread of defamatory statements, many platforms have implemented policies to address harassment and misinformation. Social media companies often have guidelines in place to remove content that is deemed defamatory (诽谤的) or harmful. However, enforcement can be inconsistent, and many false claims can still circulate before being addressed. This highlights the need for users to be critical of the information they consume and share. In conclusion, the rise of digital communication has made it easier for defamatory (诽谤的) statements to proliferate, posing risks to individuals and society as a whole. Understanding the implications of such statements is vital in fostering a respectful and truthful dialogue. As consumers of information, we must take responsibility for our words and actions, ensuring that we do not contribute to the harm caused by defamatory remarks. By promoting awareness and encouraging responsible communication, we can help mitigate the damaging effects of defamatory (诽谤的) statements in our communities.

在当今数字时代，信息传播比以往任何时候都要快。社交媒体平台允许任何人与全球观众分享他们的想法和意见。虽然这可以导致积极的讨论和思想交流，但它也为有害内容的传播打开了大门，包括defamatory（诽谤的）言论。Defamatory（诽谤的）言论可能对个人和组织产生严重后果。这些言论可能会玷污声誉，导致情感困扰，甚至引发法律诉讼。 想象一下一个致力于服务社区的公众人物。如果有人在社交媒体上发布了一条关于他们的defamatory评论，声称他们参与了非法活动，而没有任何证据，这可能会严重影响他们的职业生涯和个人生活。这样的defamatory（诽谤的）言论造成的损害可能是不可逆转的，因为互联网使这些评论能够像野火一样传播。一旦某些内容在线发布，就很难撤回或澄清信息。 此外，defamatory言论的法律影响也很重大。在许多司法管辖区，做出损害他人声誉的虚假陈述的个人可能会被追究诽谤责任。这意味着defamatory（诽谤的）言论的受害者可以在法庭上寻求赔偿，这可以作为对虚假主张的威慑。然而，证明诽谤并不总是简单的。举证责任通常在原告身上，他们必须证明该陈述是虚假的、具有损害性的，并且是出于一定程度的意图。 另一个重要方面是言论自由的角色。虽然个人有权表达自己的意见，但这一权利并非绝对。当一种意见越过界限进入defamatory（诽谤的）领域时，可能会导致严重后果。人们必须理解表达合法意见和发表可能损害他人声誉的虚假陈述之间的区别。负责任的沟通对于维护社会健康的对话至关重要。 为了打击defamatory言论的传播，许多平台已经实施了政策来处理骚扰和错误信息。社交媒体公司通常有指导方针来删除被认为是defamatory（诽谤的）或有害的内容。然而，执行可能不一致，许多虚假声明仍然可以在被处理之前传播。这突显了用户对所消费和分享的信息保持批判性思维的必要性。 总之，数字通信的兴起使得defamatory（诽谤的）言论更容易传播，对个人和整个社会构成风险。理解这些言论的影响对于促进尊重和真实的对话至关重要。作为信息的消费者，我们必须对我们的言辞和行为负责，确保我们不助长defamatory言论造成的伤害。通过提高意识并鼓励负责任的沟通，我们可以帮助减轻defamatory（诽谤的）言论在我们社区中造成的破坏性影响。