Media Law Lecture #3 - Defamation

Where ever you're sat right now, whoever you are - your clothes are dreadful. Do you really think you can sit there and wear that, let alone go out in public? Those clothes are rags. Also, your hair looks silly and so does your face. Why are you wearing those socks? They're soooo last Friday. It's Tuesday, it says so on the pair you should be wearing.

You're probably sat there wondering what on earth I'm harping on about, well that's called 'attack journalism', a form of the art where you pick away at someone famous and then pass it off as a cheap comment to avoid libel. It's definitely a form of defamation, but not one that's likely to get you in any doo-doo because you can argue that it's what you really believe. I really believe you should be wearing your Tuesday socks today, because it's Tuesday. Rude is good.

Libel is a civil tort and has very recently replaced duelling in our herritage. Instead of slapping someone around the face with a silk glove, nowadays you knock them out with a huge law book, as disputes between parties are settled in a much more humanitarim manner - in the court room. A claimant can claim to be defamed by a comment and thus march the defendant down to the magistrates court, if they feel that their reputation has been damaged in one way or another. However, this proclaimed reputation must be your ACTUAL reputation. There's no point in me storming down to the courts proclaiming I'm a rock god, when people generally think that I'm just a bellend who can barely play a guitar and have published that.

Defamation can be very, very damaging to a claimant as it can not only cost them their reputation, but also all the benefits that go along with it such as money, sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. A very famous case of defamation involves former solo artist Gary Glitter, who, after being found guilty of paedophillia, can barely leave his own house without having axes and spears flung in his direction.

It's incredibly important to realise that defamation IS NOT about hurt feelings. If you're hurt by my comments about your silly hair at the top of my blog, then I'm sorry, but it's a fair comment. People who go to court because they have been upset by something in the press will get laughed out of the room. Sure, the comments may be hurtful, but everyone knows you're fat - you know your fat, so it doesn't really demolish your reputation. Unless you're a fitness instructor, which you're not.

Libel laws are stricter in some countries than others, so it's not unlikely that a claimant may take their cases outside of their country in order to receive the verdict that they so desire. A number of high profile cases like this involve Scientology, a 'religion' that is absolutely amazing and can do no wrong. I want to say they're a cult, but they hate being called that and they're most likely reading this because THEY ARE EVERYWHERE. In fact, sod it, they're a cult and just, well, god-awful. That's my truthful opinion. Bring on the law suit, Mr. Cruise and Mr. Travolta.

To be considered 'defamatory' a statement only has to tend to defame someone. There's no need to prove that you're losing work and friends because you've been condemned by the media as a dog rapist, there just has to be a level of probability. Stories about you raping dogs are probably going to cost you your reputation as a vetinary surgeon. This leads me on to animal cruelty. The UK is crazy about all things cute and fluffy - anything from dogs to alpachas, dormice to leopards, so going round kicking them and making them fight isn't going to make you Mr. Popular. No, no, quite the opposite, for animal cruelty is considered the worst form of defamation. A furious reporter has a story in today's Sun about a television chef, someone in the public eye, saying that eating puppies is no different to eating beef. In a way he's right, after all they are both meat, but we keep puppies as pets! How dare he be so logical.

Libel and slander are two fruits from the same tree: slander deals with spoken defamtory, whereas libel speaks of the published form. It is the latter that we are most concerned with.

For an act to be considered libel it must match up to the three stages of it:

1. A defamatory statement must be made involving one of:
• Ridicule: Just like laughing at someone in the playground for having one testicle, ridicule is where you mock someone over how they look like, their actions or their beliefs.
• Hatred: This is trying to rally hate against an individual - for example, Jade Goody was touted as the most hated person in Britain. Ironically, the same publications portrayed her as an angel when she was dying of Cancer. Don't get me started on this though, I've written an extensive argument on the subject in the past and it gets me riled up every time I think about it.
• Contempt: Basically, the statement must lower the claimants public standing or discredit their trade/profession for contempt to be involved.
2. The defamatory comments must be published in a particular form and be permenant:
• Radio and TV broadcasts, newspapers and websites, are all forms of publications that can be used in a libel case as they are all published to a third party (the public) and are all permenant as they are all recorded in one way or another.
3. There must be positive identification:
•  A libel case cannot be brought by the whole of France if you claim that all French people stink of garlic, as you cannot libel an uncorporated association. In a defamation case the person must be identified in order to be defamed against. There are various forms of positive identification, but the ones most likely used in court reports are:

• Name
• Age
• Residence
• Occupation
• Photo
• A photo is especially important as, in a very unlikely case, there could well be another person with the same name, age, residence and occupation as the person in the report. They could quite easily turn round and say that they feel defamed by it. A photo is used to counter this because the chances of them being an exact replica of the offender are even slimmer. Practically nill, unless of course you're their identical twin, in which case it could very easily have been you sat in that nice box up there, so it's probably best to keep shut-um.
• So, going back to my opening paragraph, it does not defame anyone specifically as I am referring to 'you' the reader, not you as in yourself.

The meanings of words can change over time. If ShowBiz SCANDALZZZ outed someone as gay in the 19th Century it would have been seen as very defamatory and the likelihood would be that the accused would go the same way as Gary Glitter. In recent times though, being homosexual is not viewed in the same light. You could argue that a portion of society still see being gay as a bad thing, but it's less frowned upon and more openly accepted than it used to be. The public are more obsessed by the people who get their money and taxes now, so a more defamatory story would accuse an MP of buying second and third houses with the tax payer's money. Not that that's ever happened, has it?

Finally, we come to the defences - the ways in which journalists can defend themselves against libel suits. These are the three biggies:

• Justification: If a journalist can prove that a story they have ran is true, it's like a fist up the bum and a big "F you" to the claimant. They won't be seeing your money this time round.
• Fair Comment (based on fact): Journalists have a certain scope in which they can say harmful things about people, so long as they make it clear that it's an opinion not a fact. I can say "I think Vinnie Jones is a pansy," but I can't say "Vinnie Jones is a pansy" and present it as a fact, as this would damage his reputation of being a propa 'ard nut.
• Qualified Privilege: Journalists can be exempt from libel actions on certain occassions due to qualified privilege. They're allowed to say some things, but as they do not hold absolute privilege like judges, lawyers, barristers and witnesses do, they cannot say everything. However, qualified privilege can be lost if the publication is not:
• Fast - Printed in the next publication / Aired in the next TV broadcast
• Accurate - Spelling must be 100% accurate, as should the facts being presented
• or Fair - Journalists must report pleas of not guilty and summarise the defendants defence.