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.

I Went to Court Today...

and it was certainly interesting.

I'm not gonna lie, the wigs did make me feel a little bit uncomfortable for a small period of time. Whether it was the authority they held or the blinding urge to throw a pen at them, they certainly had a profound effect on me. I always thought they were the stuff of legend, of times gone by, but no, 50 year old men wear them with honour. The only other place you'd find that is in a pantomime. This would be the perfect time to practise shorthand, but mine is so poor at the moment that it wouldn't be worth it.

Having attended two cases, it's clear which one was the most interesting. Our first case seemed promising; after walking around aimlessly to two empty courtrooms we eventually discovered one with wigged people  in, so we decided to enter. The rest of the room was empty, that should have been a hint in itself. 35 minutes passed before the judge entered, NOT wearing a wig. Five minutes after this we found out that the first person being put to trial hadn't turned up. Brilliant. Luckily they breezed straight into the next case and it wasn't long before we learned that it was a personal injury case, not quite what we were looking for but at least we got an opening. The gist? A man was suing his employers because he fell off the back of the lorry whilst working. From the limited notes I managed to get, the defence argued that he should not have been there anyway and it was clearly dangerous. At the mention of the word 'plywood' we called it quits for fear of drowning in boredom.

We left the room and heard, what appeared to be an angry man, say the words "cocaine," "sexual assault," "drugs" and "nipples." Clearly, this was the case for us. The man turned out to be the defendant who was charged with sexual assault. Granted, he was openly admitting that he initially lied to the police to protect his family, but this admittance probably came from the fact he was hoping the jury would be more lenient on him, should he be convicted. The man, a 48 year old with a wife and two kids, stated that he and the accuser had been doing lines of cocaine. This lead to a frisky affair where he described how he sucked her nipples and how she pulled down his trousers to give him oral sex. The barrister questioning him was working his words to his favour, as is usually the case. He asked the defendant if he (as claimed by the accuser) said "I've got a big package," and also, regarding her breasts "can I put my cock between them?" He denied both of these allegations. He felt that a lack of cocaine lead to the allegations and conceded that if he didn't get convicted of sexual assault, he was likely to get convicted for supplying drugs.

That was definitely the most interesting case but we were running out of time and had to leave, or rather, I was. It was nice to get a taste of the court room though, but it definitely demonstrated to me how good my shorthand will have to be to report from one.

Bricks Bricks Bricks - Journalist Law Lecture #1

Wow, it's a week of first's, which is just a tincy-wincy bit obvious as this is my FIRST week of uni-ma-versity. Before I delve into any details about my lecture, I want to discuss what my life as a commuter is like. There's probably one word that sums it up more than anything: tiring. Here's an example from today:

I went to sleep around 3am for a number of reasons, namely that I was updating this thing until 2, then I just couldn't sleep. I finally drifted off and after what felt like seconds my alarm was screeching at me from my phone. I want you to imagine how peaceful and calm the sea sounds as it's lapping onto a stunning, glowing, golden beach. Then I want you to understand that my alarm sounds NOTHING like that. In fact, it sounds exactly like a danger alarm in a nuclear reactor. 40 minutes later I'm up, showered and ready to hop in my car (as a first car I felt it deserved a name, so he's called Lionel). The route I take to university is a back road that takes you through teeny Romsey and then some even smaller villages. It's lovely, picturesque and... Lethal. Half way down the road there was a police diversion, ambulances with more sirens wailing and some very distraught people. I eventually got to the park and ride, again just missing the bus. Eventually another one turned up, by this point it was 9:30. When I got to uni I had 15 minutes to grab a bite to eat and find my lecture room.

If you were to ask me what one major thing I learned today, my answer would be simple. Today I learnt that people eat bricks. Human beings, humanoids, intelligent apes, whatever you call us, we eat bricks. House bricks, to be precise. It would be ludicrous to suggest that anyone would eat breeze blocks, I mean, have you seen how unappetising they look? All grey, brittle and clay-like. Give me regular bricks any day; they're a wonderfully rich reddy-orange and they only come in single portions. This obviously shows that they have potential to be served in Michelin Star restaurant, so why not beat them to it and make your own delicious dishes? My one complaint? They're a bit dusty. So, Marjorie Dawes, I've decided that I do not want to eat any more dust.

There are two sections of the human rights act that share an equal importance in journalistic law, and not one has any waivering right over the other: Section 8 and Section 10. They're very simple in premise; as I discovered in McNae's, Section 8 covers one's right to privacy, whereas Section 10 fits loosely around freedom of expression. Put into practise though and they are both very complex commodities and they can be argued against each other until one person is a rotting skeleton. This is where the rambling about the brick comes in - the person has some sort of fantangled medical condition, and though I do not know the ins and outs of it, I can assume that it makes bricks look like the best thing since, well, sliced bricks. Anyway, if the poor soul decides that they don't want their story published, they can argue against its publication citing Section 8 of the human rights act. However, a journalist may disagree and say that everyone wants to know about brick-eating people and will argue such using Section 10 - the right to publish stories that are in the public interest. A judge must therefore weigh up the two arguments and decide which one is more relevant.

Civil courts tend to deal with the boring guff of the legal system, be it parking tickets, speeding fines or divorces. However, they can provide some of the 'scandalous' stories you'd find in publications such as 'Heat', 'Now' and 'Celebrity Fuck Ups.' In my opinion, even in these rivetting cases, the news about Katie Price marrying and divorcing a donkey on the same day is still no more news-worthy than anyone else being as stupid. To be honest I feel that this part of the media lives off dumb bimbos such as Katie Price and Kerry Katrona. In Bolivia these two would be executed with pencils for being so consistently pathetic. Of course, comment is cheap, so I can say as much of this as I like. It's all true and all my honest opinion, so unless you want Section 10 slammed up your rectum, ladies, I wouldn't try to argue against it.

Criminal courts, on the other hand, are where the all the action takes place. The farmer that went on a chainsaw rampage? He'll go there. Who wouldn't want to sit in on that case? Actually, I can say that I would avoid it and here's why: shorthand is a bugger to master as it is, so I imagine that it can only be worse when you can't understand the accent and dialect of the defendant.

The easiest way to differentiate between the two, whilst using big legal terminology, would be that criminal courts deal with 'inditable' cases that carry a sentence, whereas civil courts deal with 'non-iditable' cases such as small fines and libel claims.

What I do find humorous is that the retired, Tory, turnip-nosed do-gooders who you find volunteering in magistrates courts up and across the length and breadth of the UK, must see cases that involve mass-murderers before they reach the Crown courts. This will be a situation where a referral is all that is needed, but I'm sure that won't stop them quaking in their plastic shoes and cheap trouser suits. They probably put double-sided tape on their wigs to keep them on as the cold-blooded pig farmer stares at them with his cold, unforgiving eyes that contain the scorched souls of the people and pigs who met their ends at the teeth of his chainsaw.

Winchester hosts the court that is second only to the Old Bailey in terms of importance in this country. If the Bailey is full, cases will take place here. This is where shit gets real; the judges wear gowns and wigs, and the barristers battle it out for supremecy. It's like Helms Deep all over the gain, except with uglier trolls.

There are two standards within the industry: the standards of truth and the standards of proof. In basic terms, the standards of truth suggest that a journalist should always be sceptical and not believe the first thing they here. In contrast, the standards of proof are much more complicated. In civil courts there has to be a 'balance of the probability.' This is to stop Mr. Thug N. Idiot storming in with his knuckles dragging along the floor and declaring that his 16 year old wife and mother of three has probably been putting herself about with the boys in the year above her. There has to be some form of evidence to support the probability of this happening. For example, if she stinks of a cheap aftershave one of the 'boys' uses then there is a higher probability that she did it.

In criminal cases a conviction can only be made if it is seen as 'beyond reasonable doubt.' There are three key things that the police look to whilst making a conviction and they must have at least one of them in support: confession, forensic evidence and eye witnesses. As far as confessions are concerned, the police must still be wary as if they over-do their questioning the defendant may make a false confession. This happened to a 15 year old boy who, for some unknown reason, confessed to raping and killing an 80 year old women. He didn't do it. The true murderer and rapist (I'm allowed to say this because the man was convicted) was found years later.

So, I'm still tired, still yawning and wishing I was still in bed, but at least I can now find myself a brick to replenish my energy. Tasty.