Throughout history defamation has developed in two ways; slander and defamation. The law that guides defamation focuses on oral statements and defamation on written ones. In the 1500s English printers had to be licensed and had to be connected to the government as at that time it was believed that the written word had the potential to undermine political strength. However, with the passage of time, the law has progressed and nowadays freedom of expression is a foundation of democratic rights and freedoms, therefore freedom of speech is necessary to make possible the functioning of democracy and the involvement of community in the decision-making process. When defamation becomes practical and people feel threatened with defamation suits, the main focus is whether or not there is anything offensive. While this is important, there is an additional, more practical way to look at it. The important question is whether you have the right to say it. And if the right were there, the possible defenses would be few. Firstly what was said is true, secondly there was an obligation to inform and finally it was a question of expressing an opinion. Defamation law is theoretically supposed to defend people's good names from unfair attacks, but in practice this means it must curb free speech to protect famous and powerful people from scrutiny. Here is another example where the inference is made between two essential rights: freedom of expression and protection of reputation. In Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd Lord Nicholls said: “…a defamatory statement of fact made in the course of a political discussion is exempt from liability if published in good faith. Liability arises only if the writer knew that the statement was not true or if he made it in an imprudent way, without worrying about what... middle of the paper... ne-hacking-kelly-hoppen [accessed 18/01 /12]Ferdinand v MGN Ltd [2011] EWHC 2454 (QB)Campbell v MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22Hrea.org, Human Rights Education Associates, Freedom of Expression, http://www.hrea.org/index.php ? doc_id=408 [accessed 16/01/12]Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, 203-204Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, 203-204Campbell v. MGN Limited [2004] UKHL 22Data Protection Act 1998, Legislation.gov.uk, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents [accessed 17/01/12]Thomson Reuters, Defamation , Libel, and Slander: Background , Find Law, http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel-slander/defamation-libel-slander- background.html [accessed 01/16/12]Hrea.org, Human Rights Education Associates, Freedom of Expression, http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=408 [accessed at 16/01/12]