... word of what he feels is being implied, he may still be defamed.4 Yet, this is to be left to "reasonable" reader test, who is neither, unusually suspicious or naive, but a right a "right thinking member of society generally".5 It is clearly established that importance lies with what words may be reasonably taken to mean, not what the newspaper or writer intended by them.6 Therefore, this case seems similar to Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd,7 where the majority of the Court of Appeal held that the publication might convey an impression on the "reasonable" reader that the claimant's character was impugned8 when it was not so. The nature of the words are, not defamatory in their ordinary meaning, but are in the light of circumstances known to Mr Fawcett, to whom the words were published; "the ordinary and natural meaning may...include any implications...which a reasonable reader ...

See this essay or coursework document in full right now