OK · jury_instructions
OUJI-CIV No. 28.8
DEFAMATION – AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
DEFAMATION – AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
[Defendant] has raised the defense in this case that the alleged defamatory article
is privileged. A statement is privileged unde r this defense if [Defendant] reasonably
believed:
1. The statement gave information that affected an important interest of [Identify
person to whom statement was made]; and,
2. It was within generally accepted standards of decent conduct for [Defendant]
to make the statement.
An important factor in favor of a fi nding that it was within generally accepted
standards of decent conduct for [Defendant] to make the statement is that:
[Defendant] made the statement in response to a request, rather than volunteering
it.
OR
[Defendant] and [Identify person to whom statement was made] were [Specify
relationship between them].
This defense is not available if [Defendant] either knew the statement was false
or had serious doubt whether the statement was true or false.
Provenance
- Source
- oscn.net
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-23
- Edition
- 2026-08-23
- Content hash
6c77dd30e34693add0024ece7cd40de086ab19facef1785811348b3dfdf859b9
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.