The lecture today on defamation was taken with the fact that there is current a bill going through that could change and relax laws on defamation, allowing a greater freedom of speech and a greater protection on individuals such as bloggers who may get caught up in a law suit through defaming someone through comments that they have carelessly written on a page like this.
Defamation is defined as the following;
If what you write or broadcast about someone or a company 'tends to' (it does not have to be beyond reasonable doubt like a legal case)
1. Lowers the person in the estimation of right-thinking people
2. Causes them to be shunned or avoided
3. Disparages them in business, trade or profession.
4. Exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
If the article or story which has these points in them has been published and therefore can be seen by a third party and the person or company being defamed has been clearly identified; e.g Mr Blog, 32 from Blogland. then there is the potential for a lawsuit.
Publication+Defamation+Identification=libel
There is also the chance of still defaming someone despite not clearly identifying one single person or a company by broad brush identification. If I was to say Mr Blog from England, all Mr Blogs could feel that they have been defamed for something they haven't actually done and therefore still sue.
Recognising dangers and dangerous situations is never more apparent when dealing with a story that could potentially defamed someone. It is always best to seek a lawyer to ensure that you don't defame someone or a company.
So what is seen as a defamatory statement? We considered different statements and thought about whether or not we felt they were defamatory;
The safe statements were those such as describing an individual banker as 'working and playing hard' or that an individual banker had a 'crazy wage' whereas statements that were a little dodgy were ones such as; 'It's like stealing- these statements are on the boundary but generally regarded as safe. But statements that were defamatory were ones such as, 'The company and the individual are engaging in illegal activity' This is a statement that could have a defence, but without hard conclusive evidence in a court case this could lead to the news agency and the reporter being sued for thousands of pounds.
So what are the defences?
1. Justification: It's true and I can prove it in court.
2.Fair comment: An honestly held opinion based upon facts or privilege; from court or parliament.
3.Absolute privilege: Court reporting
4. Qualified privilege: Police quotes, press statements.
5. Bane and antidote: Writing something defamatory in the start of an article and then correcting it further down in that same article.
6. Apologies and clarifications- Correcting an earlier mistake; possibly in the same bulletin.
7. Reynolds defence; 10 points that you have followed to show that your story was in the public interest and as a journalist you have passed the 10 points of how your article was written and researched. The story was done for the right reasons.
There is no defence however, when;
-Facts aren't checked.
-When you have to referred up to your boss.
-When you haven't put yourself in the shoes of the person you wrote about.
-You get carried away by a 'spicy story'.
-You have not bothered to wait for a lawyers opinion and run a story anyway.
Something said in parliament or court can be quoted by journalists under the defence of absolute privilege; what you are reporting is under protection and therefore you cannot be sued because you are saying something that was said in court by a judge or by a politician in parliament. Sometimes something might by said by a politician knowing that the papers can now publish something that previously they would not have done as a result of the fear of being sued; e.g. in the Ryan Giggs case.
Media organisations can however still be sued under defamation even if you are quoting what someone has said, not in court or parliament. That organisation have chosen to publish it knowing that it is defamatory and therefore can be sued for giving the quote a platform to be published. Otherwise it would not be defamatory anyway. The person being defamed is more likely to sue the media organisation than the person giving the quote anyway as they are going to have more money.
It is always best to understand and recognise risk, understanding that it is best to stay away from doing defamatory stories about big companies or celebrities such as Mc Donalds, or celebrities that have a history of suing media organisations because they have the best lawyers and enough money to continue a case to make sure they win. It is also worth noting that people who are dead cannot sue for defamation and therefore it is more likely that stories will come out about a person once they are dead because the fear of them suing and the media organisation not having enough evidence evaporates as they can no longer sue. It is always worth mentioning that it is always best to refer to a lawyer if you are unsure about something; lawyers are paid to help and check facts and therefore should always be consulted first.
People or companies can also be defamed through pictures and therefore is most common and more of a danger through TV. Careless use of background and GV shots with a voice over can lead to innuendo and inference that may or may not have been intended and therefore can be extremely dangerous. For example a GV of a row of shops and then stopping one particular shot and then having a voice over saying, 'some shops have been trading illegally', is defamatory because it is suggesting, maybe unintentionally, that this is a shop that is trading illegally. Another example would be a shot that shows the front door of a house with the voice over explaining this is the house of a terrorist whilst showing the next door house as well and not explaining which of the houses is the terrorist's house. A shot showing a group of people going into a court but not clearly identifying which of the group is the defendant is also defamatory to the rest of the group if it is said that ' the defendant went into the court for the start of their trial', this is broad brush identification. GV's need to be specific and not careless.
Defamatory comments-
-Damage reputation, especially if you have money or are in public life.
Meaning as iterpreted by 'reasonable man'
-Inference is a hazard.
-Innuendo is a hazard.
-Assess the whole context.
Some recent cases include that of Charlotte Church in July 2012 who accepted libel damages over a story which appeared in a Sunday tabloid about her proposing to her boyfriend despite performing a gig in a completely different place. There was no defence and damages were accepted before the case went to court.
Also Chris Jefferies who won his libel case against 8 tabloid papers over the accusations he killed Joanna Yates and revealing details of is private life despite him not being the killer and just being eccentric.
No comments:
Post a Comment