It seems to be a bit more subtle (did I say biased?), as shown by 2 cases reported today in the BP. On the one hand, Jutaporn was condemned because his remark was not made in good faith. On the other hand, because his criticism and expression of opinion were carried in good faith, Sondhi was acquitted.

So it's not only the intent to defame, but also whether it was done in "good faith" or not, which seems to be a very subjective notion. And very convenient too.

"Four legs good, two legs bad."

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Reconciliation?

It seems to be a bit more subtle (did I say biased?), as shown by 2 cases reported today in the BP. On the one hand, Jutaporn was condemned because his remark was not made in good faith. On the other hand, because his criticism and expression of opinion were carried in good faith, Sondhi was acquitted.

So it's not only the intent to defame, but also whether it was done in "good faith" or not, which seems to be a very subjective notion. And very convenient too.

"Four legs good, two legs bad."

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Reconciliation?

Luckily we do not need to rely on what newspapers report on Law cases, nor on the selected quotes from such newspapers' descriptions.