A defamatory statement is a statement which damages someone’s reputation in the minds of right thinking members of society, opens them to ridicule, hatred or persecution and disparages the person in their business, trade or profession. So if I was to play football with Wayne Rooney and then claimed that when we played I was better than him and he wasn’t very good that could be a defamatory statement because I my comments could cause problems within his profession, whereas if I claimed he was a bad cook it could still be seen as defamatory but wouldn’t be as bad because his cooking skills are not what his reputation is based upon. For a claimant to sue for liable they must prove 3 things to a court, they must show the statement is defamatory, it must be reasonably understood that the statement refers to the claimant, and finally they must prove that it has been published to a third party. These three things, if proven, allow someone to sue a journalist for defamation.
But we have certain defences against being sued for liable, these are justification, fair comment and privilege. Fair comment is very simple; it basically means you prove the statement to be true this is the most basic defence. If there are multiple accusations against one defendant then as long as the most damaging one is proven to be true then often that is all that is needed. A recent example of this is a story in The Sun from last week talking about George Michaels being released from prison. Michaels could complain that this story is defamatory because it lowers people’s opinions of him by talking about his jail time and drug abuse. But because all these facts are known to be true, he deliberately was in prison because he was driving under the influence of drugs so The Sun can safely publish this story without fear.
The second defence is fair comment, this means that someone can express a defamatory opinion if they believe it is true and is not malicious. It must also be recognisable as an opinion so if the reader believes that what is written is factual and not opinion and journalist cannot use this defence. This is a hard defence to prove because you are trying to prove that it is purely opinion. Also malice will undermine this defence so if it can be proven that what was sais was malicious then this defence will not be applicable.
The final defence is privilege; this basically means that if the public interest demands that there is complete freedom of speech without any risk of proceeding from defamation even if the statements are defamatory and even if they are untrue. This mainly comes into effect when reporting in court or parliament because these are places where journalists receive qualified privilege. As with all the defences there are certain restrictions and rules a journalists must follow to be able to use this defence. Reporters must be fair, this is especially important in court, because if they are biased towards one side, or do not tell both sides of a story they could be seen to be trying to influence the views of someone who reads their story, which could be a member of the jury. The reports must be accurate and must not present allegations as fact because they can be proven to be true or false later on in the hearing.
Henry
No comments:
Post a Comment