Which defense against defamation is designed to encourage individuals to speak freely?

The correct choice is the defense of Qualified Privilege. This defense is structured to promote open communication and the free exchange of information, particularly in circumstances where individuals have a vested interest in sharing truthful statements.

Qualified privilege applies in certain contexts, such as legislative or judicial proceedings, where individuals can express their views, even if they may be potentially defamatory. The rationale behind this defense is to encourage honest discussions and reporting of information without the continual fear of liability for defamation, provided that the statements are made in good faith and relevant to the matter at hand.

In contrast, absolute privilege is broader and provides complete immunity regardless of the intent or accuracy of the statement, pertinent in contexts like judicial proceedings, and does not specifically aim to facilitate free expression. The defense of necessity and the defense of truth also do not pertain to encouraging free speech in the same way qualified privilege does; necessity addresses the justification for actions taken under urgent circumstances, while truth serves as a complete defense to defamation claims without directly promoting the free sharing of information.