The idea of defamation 'What a ba**ard"

Yesterday lecture based on Law, was learning the risks of being sued for libel, and the costs that will have to be paid out if you lose the case. This is important to Journalists, as they are the most likely to face this type of accusation. The lecture was rather interesting with Chris giving us an incite into interesting newspaper stories of cute little furry animals of which would feature in nearly every issue of 'The Sun'. It ended in rather a humorous way as Chris was interrupted by a mystery person (he could not see due to is bad eye site) this person turned out to be the boss of the university who was in fact trying to get into the lecture room as we had ran over time. So, lets introduce you to some key ideas that we learnt (and I have read from our large book of law which means you don't have to) in case you are reading this and don't study law (chances are you won't be but hey!)

Defamation
Those statements published or spoke which affect the reputation of a person, company or organisation. Usually if the defamation is in a permanent form, the tort is libel, for which damages can be awarded, unless the statement is protected by a defence. However if the defamation is not in a permanent form such as radio, television or a public play, this is know as slander where you can only be libel if the defamation has been given to a 3rd person such as an audience. Once the judge has decided weather a statement is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning the jury are left to decide the circumstances of statement made. They use definitions to help them decide if something is libel of being defamatory.


If it tends to do any of the following:

• expose the person to hatred, ridicule or contempt;
• cause the person to be shunned or avoided;
• lower the person in estimation of right-thinking members of society generally; or
• disparage the person in his/her business, trade, office, or profession.

Inferences

An inference is a statement with a secondary meaning which can be understood without special knowledge 'who reads between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs' An example of this could be headline that stated 'I saw the editor leave the pub on his way to work, and his speech was slurred' Although the word 'drunk' isn't used, it can be disputed that this is what they were referring to. The words must be read in full and in their context.

Innuendoes

An innuendo is a statement which may seem to be innocuous to some people but which will be seen as defamatory by people with special knowledge. This could be like 'I saw the prime minister going into a house on the corner of Queen Street' in itself would not be defamatory, however if someone with special knowledge was to know that the house was in fact a brothel (even though they would probable just join them) the case could change.

Changing standards 

Imputations that were defamatory hundred years ago may not be defamatory today, and vice versa. A main example of this would that be hundred years ago it would have been defamatory to call a man a homosexual. However today no 'right thinking member of society' should think less of someone because they are gay. Therefore to state wrongly someone to be gay wouldn't be seen as defamatory as it is 'normal'.

Just a little note that even if journalists and his/her editor are convinced of the truth of a story, they may be unable to prove it in court- for example because witnesses may not give evidence. This can lead to a media organisation being sued for a whopping £350,000 which is what happened to News of the World when they claimed that a businessman was a paedophile. Disputes can be settled out of court to try and run away from having to pay out such large amounts of money. This can be done by payment of agreed damages and without any publicity.

Errors & apologies
Sometimes publications that can cause a libel problem are not the result of a conscious decision but the result of an innocent error. This results in a solicitor letter from 'the other side' (the dark side hahaha) which may lead eventually to a High Court libel hearing. Just a little note that you should not mess with libel if you are an inexperienced person (meaning Journalist who may aggravate the problem more) So stay away and get professional help from the relevant manager or executive (and do not worry you will not be sacked well unless you have done something really bad, as this happens a lot in the media) Basically you should just 'GET THE STORY RIGHT' in order to avoid such problems as even publishing an apology or an inadequate correction can cause further problems in some circumstances (usually the ones of a public persona, with quick access to a legal representative hmm does celebrities come to mind? It's the ones who may have a track record of suing for libel and know how to get money out of you so BEWARE!)

Businessman Bob
Attribution to Jayjay402 

VS

The man that sues everyone
Attribution to Images_of_Money