UK Politics

This gives a bit of a false impression. Specifically, it is for the defendant to show that a defamatory statement is substantially true, rather than the complainant/plaintiff to show it is false. This is essentially because truth is a defence against defamation in the same way self-defence is a defence against assault.

Essentially, the complainant must prove that:

1. the defendant made a defamatory statement (i.e. a statement of a fact that - if true - would harm your reputation),
2. you suffered a material loss as a result of harm to your reputation, and
3. it was the defendant's statement that was the cause.

The defendant may argue in defence that:

1. it was substantially true,
2. they honestly believed it was true and had a reasonably good reason for doing so, and/or
3. it was in the public interest to say so.

The burden of proof is still "on the balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" in each case.

This kind of makes a little bit of sense though, right? If I tell the world that you like to put your thumb in your bum and then sniff it, you'd probably feel it should be on me to provide evidence rather than on you to prove that you've literally never done that in your life.

We are definitely lacking in anti-SLAPP legislation, but then so are many states.