用真理诽谤人是可能的，真理可以不公正地伤害人。Joel Feinberg认为，诽谤等无争议的损害(Feinberg, 1990, p.256)诽谤法是对利益的保护，以法律术语“损害”为基础，对人身损害没有必要。它通常与损害某人的利益有关。人民有维护自己利益和言论自由的人权。然而，诽谤罪的存在是有问题的。这种信念似乎是反常的。根据刑法，人们有权对他人说三道四，损人利己。诽谤是一项独立的法律权利。Feinberg(1990)也认为“在我们的法律体系中没有诽谤的法律权利，而只有在该体系的侵权法分支中才有明确的不诽谤的法律义务。”有保护人们和维护隐私的法律。此外，Feinberg(1990)认为我们需要一个“冒犯原则”，它可以作为公众谴责的指南。根据范伯格的观点，犯罪原则要求我们“当公共行为导致某人犯罪时的观点”。(p.26) Feinberg提出了许多需要考虑和考虑的规则和因素，以评估是否需要限制犯罪(Feinberg, 1990)。他声称有些事可能是真的，但在法律上不能诽谤别人。人们仍然可以用真相伤害别人。范伯格声称，一个人可以被“伤害”，但不受伤害的影响。澳大利亚诽谤法对媒体有相当大的限制。“这部法律有一些不良后果，人们对媒体传播的影响普遍存在误解。首先，对名誉的损害总是被高估，对原告的不公正利益总是被高估。(2000年第19条)这使得没有必要和无意的假定来压制无害的言论。其次，诽谤法可以使社会倒退和排斥态度永久化(Baker, 2008)。为了确定诽谤法的寒蝉效应，贝克采访和调查了记者和编辑，讨论诽谤法对媒体内容的影响程度。他的工作已经检查了媒体产品，以考虑是否存在任何寒蝉效应。贝克在澳大利亚媒体上发现了相当大的寒蝉效应。
It is possible to defame someone with truth, truth can harm unjustly. Joel Feinberg considers the uncontroversial harm such as defamation (Feinberg, 1990, p.256) Defamation law is protecting an interest and based on the legal term “harm”, which is not necessary about the physical harm. It generally about harm to somebody’s interest. People have a human right to maintain their interest and free speech. However, it is problematic that there should be a crime of defamation. The conviction seems to be anomalous. People have a right with respect to the criminal law to say false and damaging things to others. It is an independent legal right to defame. Feinberg (1990) also claims that “there is no legal right to defame in our legal system, but rather a clear legal duty not to defame found only in the tort law branch of the system. There is legislation to protect people and maintain privacy.Moreover, Feinberg (1990) suggests that we need an “offense principle” that can act as a guide to public censure. According to Feinberg, the offense principle commits us to “the view that when public conduct causes offense to someone”. (p.26) Feinberg suggested many rules and factors that needs to be considered and taken into account in order to value whether the offense needs to be restricted ( Feinberg, 1990). He claims that something can be truth, but not legally defame another person. People still can harm others with the truth. Feinberg claims that a person can be “harmed” though not affected by the harm. Australia defamation law places considerable restraint on the media. “There are some undesirable outcomes about the law and the widespread misperception about the impact of media communication. Firstly, harm to reputation is consistently overrated, to the unjust advantage of the plaintiff.”(Article 19, 2000) This make unnecessary and unintentional presumes to silence harmless speech. Secondly, defamation law can perpetuate socially regressive and exclusionary attitudes (Baker, 2008). To determine the chilling effect of defamation law Baker has interviewed and surveyed journalists and editors to discuss the extent of the influence of defamation law on media content. His work has examined media products in order to consider the existence of any chilling effect. Baker finds a considerable chilling effect on the Australian media.