In English law truth is generally an absolute defence. If it’s true, you won’t lose a claim for defamation.
There might be some exceptions, but they are rare enough to state the above for all practical purposes. I don’t think the courts would consider things like motivations or results, the crux of the matter being that if it is true then it is not defamation.
From Merriam Webster (my bold):
: the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person : the act of defaming another
So posting " Fred Xxyyvv who lives at hhh st is a lesbian transexual " is which perhaps cause harm to Fred would not be considered defamatory or an attempt to defame or an invasion of privacy in English courts if it were true. Interesting.
Peter wrote:
Truth must be a defence to a libel allegation.
Eh no, and ask me how I know 
I endured, and that is the word, a case where a business was stolen from me. I was in hospital seriously ill and my business partners, well, nicked all the business.
Went to court blah blah blah, and guess what. Lawyer said Steve, defamation which they turned it against me, is very difficult in courts. Even if you win after going to proof, they do not have anything so where is the point.
The point being only sue someone who has stuff you can get off them after you have spent thousands on lawyers fees and you win, which is always 50/50.
The truth is always difficult for folks..
gallois wrote:
So posting " Fred Xxyyvv who lives at hhh st is a lesbian transexual " is which perhaps cause harm to Fred would not be considered defamatory or an attempt to defame or an invasion of privacy in English courts if it were true. Interesting.
Assuming it’s true, it’s not defamation. A statement cannot be defamatory, almost by definiton, if it is true.
It might constitute an invasion of privacy – I don’t know if that is a specific tort – but I doubt it. If the action caused them harm (e.g. some unpleasant people assaulted them) then there might be some other recourse in civil or perhaps even criminal law, but not via a claim for defamation.
gallois wrote:
So posting " Fred Xxyyvv who lives at hhh st is a lesbian transexual " is which perhaps cause harm to Fred would not be considered defamatory or an attempt to defame or an invasion of privacy in English courts if it were true. Interesting.
I presume that disclosing highly confidential information (like sexual orientation) might be punishable under some other law.
I don’t know if there’s a technical definition of ‘Highly Confidential Information’ – I presume not and that it’s just official-sounding wording with no specific meaning – but I don’t think one’s sexual orientation comes anywhere close to it.
You have a right not to be discriminated against due to your sexual orientation. I don’t believe (but am willing to be corrected) you have a right to it being kept secret.
That said, your sexual orientation is whatever you say it is. So you could change it, and then perhaps bring a claim for defamation on the grounds that the statement was false. However the person you claimed against would likely argue in their defence that you suffered no serious reputational harm (because does being associated with a particular sexual orientation harm one’s reputation?) and also that, if you’d recently changed, their statement was an honestly-held opinion, which is also a pretty good defence.
Graham wrote:
I don’t know if there’s a technical definition of ‘Highly Confidential Information’ – I presume not and that it’s just official-sounding wording with no specific meaning – but I don’t think one’s sexual orientation comes anywhere close to it.
Graham, that is at least what I was being taught for the last three jobs on the “data protection” annual courses – not sure if that is the legal definition in law, it I was taught the same things multiple times by multi providers, and the sexual orientation together with some other things (party membership? some political info) was in that category.
Maybe it is just for the employer to consider?
is which perhaps cause harm to Fred would not be considered defamatory or an attempt to defame or an invasion of privacy in English courts if it were true. Interesting.
Nobody would publish that because it is totally boring. But if it was a politician, happily married with kids, etc, the whole show, and preaching wholesome family life, while doing rough trade at 3am on Clapham Common, they would run it, but they would need to collect some evidence because the subject is obviously going to sue.
But anyway, being a lesbian transexual would not be actionable because it is mandatory in politics. It would be an honour!
together with some other things (party membership? some political info) was in that category.
Yes that is something else: it is what you can store on databases, supposedly. But GDPR is a whole can of other worms, not to mention being misunderstood by 97.35% of individuals 
Yes lots of questions are not allowed to be asked at interviews… you just have to find out some other way. A lot of it is country-dependent too.
Peter wrote:
Truth must be a defence to a libel allegation.
Now that’s a “one-liner”! As to “must”, that’s your opinion which may not be shared by everyone else.
I also think one should be careful to hold forth English libel law as a shining example given how it makes libel tourism possible.
Truth is a defence to libel in the UK, but actual court cases tend to be a lot more complicated. It’s like divorce law; actual cases reported in the media tend to involve high net worth individuals with complicated situations.
I have a Q re Sweden. Can the newspapers report that [name] has been
All the above affect the person’s reputation, obviously, but all can be easily proven as true.
