In the same vein as last week, the beginning of the lecture consisted of us undertaking a task to assess the area of law we are studying. This week, the topic of the lecture was Defamation. We were given a series of statements made by people about a housing company, who it would appear is not fulfilling its duties and responsibilities properly.
One statement read, "They keep making promises they will fix things, but nothing happens. There's definitely something wrong with this company. I reckon that boss of their's John Smith is raking off all the cash and hiding it from the council - how else would he be driving that Bentley of his?" This is a highly defamatory statement and s
uch a statement is very libelous due to the fact that it would cause harm to John Smith's business, and he could possibly be shunned and avoided via these unfair comments. The fact that the words 'raking off' are used, implies that he is partaking in some sort of illegal operation. As these are merely uninformed personal opinions, they don't have any libel defences i.e. justification, as they have not checked the facts. So this is an example of libel.
Alternately, an example of a 'safe' defamation statement we examined in class reads, "If you ask me most of the problems seem to be with this sub-contractor they've been using - Peerless Plumbing. Totally incompetent and haven't got a clue what they are doing. I wasn't at all surprised to see that Hampshire Trading Standards took them to court last week for making a total mess of an old lady's house and then overcharging her for the privilege". This is entirely justified defamation on the speaker's part. He is giving his ho
nest opinion which is a clear defense against any libel issues which may crop up. In addition to this, he is also basing his opinions on facts and public interest as it is fact that the Trading Standards took Peerless Plumbing to court, and it is in the public interest that an old lady was financially exploited.
PUBLICATION + DEFAMATION + IDENTIFICATION = LIBEL
Defamation
- Lowering someone in the estimation of right-thinking people.
- Causes them to be shunned or avoided.
- Disparages them in their business, trade or profession.
- Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
Defamation via Pictures
- Common danger in TV
- Careless use of background shots with a voice over.
- People or companies must not be unidentifiable in certain contexts e.g. fraud news package. (Juxtaposition).
- Imprecise shots e.g. filming a business premises that has been investigated for fraud, but the shot includes other businesses in close proximity of the one being investigated.
Reputation and Meaning
- Reputation is important if you are in public
life, have money, or both.
- Meaning as interpreted by reasonable man.
- Inference and Innuendo are both hazardous.
- Asses the whole context.
Libel Defenses
- Justification - it's true and we can prove it.
- Fair comment - honestly held opinion based upon facts, or privileged material, in public interest.
- Absolute privilege - court reporting
- Qualified privilege - police quotes, pressers.
Further Defenses
- Bane and Antidote - defamation removed by context (balancing).
- Apologies and clarifications.
Reynolds Defense
- Material must be : in the public interest
product of reasonable journalism.
NO Defense
- Not checked the facts
- Not "referred up"
- When you haven't put yourself in the shoes of the person/company you write about.
- Got carried away with a juicy story.
- Not bothered to wait for lawyer's opinion.
Recognise Risk
- Who am I writing about, and could they sue?
- Is what I'm writing about defamatory?
- Do I have a defense?
A famous libel case was the case where the Sunday Mirror (2008) ran an article claiming that Kerry Katona (formerly of Atomic Kitten) worked as a prostitute before she became famous as a performing artist. The story was based on the Mirror claiming that Katona's mother was to release a book which would have detailed such claims. However, Katona's mother has not written an autobiography or is even set to publish.
This was highly libelous on the part of the Sunday Mirror as the results of these unfair claims would have unfairly caused Katona to be defamed. Much of her finances comes from advertising, and such media coverage would - if it wasn't to be found untrue - have caused her to be shunned or avoided, damaged her profession, and exposed her to ridicule. (However I'm not sure that such findings would have lowered her in the estimations of right thinking people HAHAHA).
For this particular case there are no defenses, and after being taken to court, it seems that the Sunday Mirror had merely fabricated such a story to sell papers... NOT A VALID DEFENSE.
No comments:
Post a Comment