Expressing a general opinion on a type of products without reference to a specific manufacturer is not defamation

Shareholders of an e-cigarette manufacturing, marketing and supply company posted insulting statements on Facebook against a medical doctor who specializes in smoking research, calling him a liar and corrupted for introducing the company's products on a TV show and expressing his position that e-cigarettes are harmful to the health.
The Court held that such were defamatory publications. When reviewing whether publication is defamatory, the principle of freedom of speech is placed against the principle of protection of the reputation. The review is done by broadly examining the overall context of the offending publications, the identity of the offended party and the objective significance of the publications. Here, the publication was name-calling intended to attribute characteristics of a fraud and although it was attributed to a public figure who is naturally granted lesser protection, his right to protection of his reputation trumps over the freedom of speech. Thus, these are defamatory publications. Under law there are defenses for defamation, including the defense of publication aimed to condemn prior defamation. However, here the doctor presented the products in a TV show and damaged the company, but his statements are not considered defamatory to the company because the doctor only expressed his scientific opinion without mentioning the company’s name.