(1) In normal (polite) conversation. If I make a comment to someone, I implicitly invite that person to respond. I am not restricted in the comments that I make and thus the responder is not restricted in the response.
In practice if when I speak to my neighbour, if he always responds by swearing at me I will stop speaking to him.
So if I make a comment which I know or expect the media to publish, then I also invite the media to respond to my comments. If I dont like what the media says, then I should not speak to the media.
(2) If I am a representative of the public, or conduct business in the name of the public, ( which elected official do), then those in whose name I act have the right to the information necessary for them be able to make an informed judgement as to whether I should be allowed to continue to represent them. If this person who represents me, has misrepresented themself, or is not fulfilling the trust that has been placed in them, then if this person fails to inform me of their misconduct, can it be wrong ro another person to tell me what the facts are.
(3). Now in the case of the Minister of Health, she has said that beetroot, garlic, and onions are all that is required to combat aids, and that anti-rival drugs are a plot by the western world to poison the citizens of this land. She has also supported the use of vitamins in combating drugs and has publically supported the efforts of certain organizations in promoting their products. At this point the reader needs to decide as whether the above statements are fact or fiction. If fact, then should the law allow this person to hide the evidence of her
misdeeds or misconduct.
If fiction — firstly to require the publisher of the false information to retract the false claims, and to provide minister the opportunity to publish the facts and to require the publisher to show that the information publised was published in good faith, ( that is based on the publisher having expended the necessary effort to establish as far as is reasonable the accuracy of the report).
(4) For public figures, the ability to sue in court should be severly limited, the defense that these people have is to make available for publication of the facts available in the situation so that the public can better judge whethet to vote for them in the future. Public figures should have nothing to hide in public affairs – they have a right to their personal privacy — but that is all.
(5). Now the law and the lawyers and the statutes and the judgements have presented
the above in a multiplicty of words and decrees and judgements to much so that it has become a very time consuming and costly procedure to establish the facts. The facts should speaka for themselves, how is the department of health doing. If it is doing well, keep up the good work. If it is not doing well, fire the person. If the person has stolen something then treat the person as a thief should be treated. etc etc