Describe the two primary types of defenses to a defamation action

What will be an ideal response?

There are two primary types of defenses to a defamation action: truth and privilege. It is often stated that truth is an absolute defense. In other words, if I make an honest statement that harms the reputation of the plaintiff, there has been no defamation. For the ordinary plaintiff, however, a defendant cannot use the excuse that he or she thought the statement was true. Only when a possible privilege exists is the defendant's incorrect belief about the truth of the statement important. Privilege is the second type of defense in a defamation action. Most privileges arise under certain circumstances in which our society has decided that encouraging people to speak is more important than protecting people's reputations. There are two types of privilege: 1 ) absolute and 2 ) qualified or conditional. When an absolute privilege exists, one can make any statement, true or false, and cannot be sued for defamation. There are very few situations in which such a privilege exists. The Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives an absolute privilege to individuals speaking on the House and Senate floors during congressional debate. This privilege encourages the most robust debate possible over potential litigation. Another absolute privilege arises in the courtroom during trial. The other type of privilege is a qualified or conditional privilege. A conditional privilege provides that one will not be held liable for defamation unless the false statement was made with malice. Malice has a special meaning in a defamation case: it means knowledge of the falsity of the statement or reckless disregard for the truth. In other words, the defendant either knew that the statement was false or could easily have discovered whether it was false.