In conclusion, the above illustrated the chilling effect of defamation law. The chilling effect of defamation law on freedom of expression is that people are less likely to say what they think. It also makes people show restrained and caution. I think that defamation is something that is immoral, but I do not think it should be illegal. Defamation is supposed to protect reputation from unfair attack. Defamation is a fundamental of protection of people's ability to stand up and face the world. It is objectionable is to obstruct free speech and protect powerful people from investigation (Dent, C. & Kenyon, 2004). It is possible to defame someone with truth. Truth can still harm unjustly. However, we cannot make the distinction between what is representation and action, because there is a distinction between the act and the rest of the world. People can assault somebody by causing others to form an adverse opinion of a person or cause panic with words. People can do a lot of harm with words. The harm principle is a restriction on other people's actions.
Giliker & Beckwith have come to the conclusion that the law of defamation is a difficult and very complex area of law but it is an area of law which is of considerable interest to anyone who is concerned how the law of tort deals with the difficult issues of freedom of expression and the rights of individuals to protect their reputation from attack. Giliker & Beckwith are of the view that although the Defamation Act 1996 has made an attempt to deal with these problems there is quite clearly quite a long way to go until these problems are eradicated. They say that it seems likely that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights inot English law by the Human Rights Act 1998 will serve to encourage the debate.