OK · jury_instructions
OUJI-CIV No. 28.7
DEFAMATION – AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR STATEMENT MADE BY
DEFAMATION – AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR STATEMENT MADE BY
ANOTHER PERSON
[Defendant] has raised the defense in this case that the alleged defamatory article
is privileged because it was a statement made by another person. A statement is
privileged under this defense if the following requirements are met:
1. Defendant is [an agent /employee of] a/an owner/licensee/operator of a
(television/radio broadcasting station) /(network of television/radio broadcasting
stations);
2. The statement was published/uttered in /(as a part of ) a television/radio
broadcast;
3. By a person other than [an agent /employee] the Defendant; and
4. Defendant did not fail to ex ercise due care to prevent the
publication/utterance of the statement.
Provenance
- Source
- oscn.net
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
73293383f296ccf40daa639be79013cc78e04712eb0f7bc6763219f0206cf5e2
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.