Defamatory statements are those published or spoken which affect the reputation of a person, company or organisation. Such statements will often; expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule or contempt, cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided, lower the person in the estimation of 'right thinking' society or disparage the person in their particular profession.
Defamatory court cases usually involve a Jury, however a Judge does have the power to decide against this if they feel that the case is too complex (particularly in terms of legal laws, regulations and exceptions - of which there seem many!) to explain to them in a short space of time.
When publishing or writing an article Journalists must be very careful about what they say. Even using inferences (statements with secondary meanings that would be understood by someone with reasonable worldly knowledge) and innuendos (statements that may seem innocuous to some but defamatory to those with special knowledge) can be very dangerous as if a claimant can show that the article is clearly about them and that most readers would understand this was the case, they most certainly have a case for defamation. In an attempt to entice a reader to a story even if untrue many Journalists use the 'bane and antidote' method. This is where a potentially defamatory headline is used (e.g. Beckham hooker scandal) but the article itself actually reports the story to be false. This is also very risky as a claimant could suggest that many readers would only view the headline and therefore issues such as the layout of the article are used as evidence.
Media organisations must choose very carefully when deciding to publish a potentially defamatory statement. As well as the dangers listed above they must also take into account how a jury may interpret meanings, the fact that they would have to prove the story true in court, the potentially huge damages awarded if they lose and the large legal costs involved in a defamation case.
Although all these hazards may suggest that a media organisation would be foolish to publish potential defamation there is some evidence in recent developments to suggest that freedom of expression is beginning to tilt in the journalists favour. Legislation passed such as the UK’s adoption of the Human Rights Act 2000 and The 1996 Defamation Act provide journalists with some defence against the seemingly endless swarms of groups and individuals just waiting to sue!
Defamatory court cases usually involve a Jury, however a Judge does have the power to decide against this if they feel that the case is too complex (particularly in terms of legal laws, regulations and exceptions - of which there seem many!) to explain to them in a short space of time.
When publishing or writing an article Journalists must be very careful about what they say. Even using inferences (statements with secondary meanings that would be understood by someone with reasonable worldly knowledge) and innuendos (statements that may seem innocuous to some but defamatory to those with special knowledge) can be very dangerous as if a claimant can show that the article is clearly about them and that most readers would understand this was the case, they most certainly have a case for defamation. In an attempt to entice a reader to a story even if untrue many Journalists use the 'bane and antidote' method. This is where a potentially defamatory headline is used (e.g. Beckham hooker scandal) but the article itself actually reports the story to be false. This is also very risky as a claimant could suggest that many readers would only view the headline and therefore issues such as the layout of the article are used as evidence.
Media organisations must choose very carefully when deciding to publish a potentially defamatory statement. As well as the dangers listed above they must also take into account how a jury may interpret meanings, the fact that they would have to prove the story true in court, the potentially huge damages awarded if they lose and the large legal costs involved in a defamation case.
Although all these hazards may suggest that a media organisation would be foolish to publish potential defamation there is some evidence in recent developments to suggest that freedom of expression is beginning to tilt in the journalists favour. Legislation passed such as the UK’s adoption of the Human Rights Act 2000 and The 1996 Defamation Act provide journalists with some defence against the seemingly endless swarms of groups and individuals just waiting to sue!
No comments:
Post a Comment