Defamation Laws are weakening..Defamation can be either slander (spoken or transient form) or libel (written or permanent form). A statement is defamatory if it exposes a person to ridicule or contempt, causes him to be shunned or avoided, lowers him in the estimation of right thinking society or disparages him in his business or profession. A comparison between two cases offers a good example of how defamation legislation has weakened. In 1977, Mary Whitehouse succeeded in libel prosecution against the publication ‘Gay News’, claiming the magazine was blasphemous. In similar circumstances this year, religious minister Stephen Green failed in his attempt to prosecute the producers of ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ for blasphemous libel.
Critical national figures like Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former England manager Steve Mclaren are excellent examples of how the laws have weakened. Scorned by several former backbenchers and ministers in hastily written autobiographies, Brown has bore the brunt of some harsh personal criticism. Former media advisor Lance Prince, John Prescott and Cherie Blair have all been in on the action, Cherie famously accusing Brown of ‘rattling the keys over her husband’s head.’
In published news articles Steve Mclaren has been accused of being ‘sulky’, ‘a liar’, ‘an unhappy man’, and ‘psychologically flawed’. It got so bad that Mclaren stormed out of a post-match press conference during the farcical World Cup qualifying campaign. All possible grounds for libel suits, although none were taken. Perhaps most surprisingly, the right wing site http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/ ran a lead article on their front page called ‘Germaine Greer is a total c*nt’, referring to her pledge to challenge laws in the workplace.
Defamation Laws aren’t weakening..
Defamation has always been difficult to defend because the claimant does not have to prove what is said is true. Additionally, Max Mosley has appealed to the high court to introduce a new law forcing the press to ask permission before running a story. Should the legislation be passed, injunctions and legal wrangles will prevent juicy stories ever being published. One interesting and obvious argument is the Raphael vs. Firscht case. A company boss was awarded 22,000 UKP in damages over fake entries posted on the social networking site, Facebook.
The problem stems from a false profile of Matthew Firscht created in June last year by Grant Raphael. Mr Raphael stupidly alleged he was signed up to gay groups and had lied to avoid paying loans. Facebook disclosed the information the Claimant was seeking the identity and internet address of the person posting the comments which all led to Mr Raphael's computer.
The Claimant was awarded 22,000 UKP in damages. Judge Richard Parkes QC said that Mr Raphael was liable for the internet entries and had lied about the posts.Mr Firscht said of his former friend: "What Mr Raphael did was extremely offensive, embarrassing and may have caused serious damage to the reputation of myself and Applause Store, which I have spent years building into what it is today. The case never needed to go this far.If only Mr Raphael had apologised then there would have been no need to have issue proceedings. Instead, Mr Raphael stuck his head in the sand and will now have to pay the consequences for having lied to both myself and the court."
More evidence comes from a web article found on http://www.birminghampost.net/. The number of defamation cases is increasing as the economic situation worsens, according to a dispute resolution lawyer.
Simon Griffiths, a solicitor in the dispute resolution and litigation department at Black Country law firm George Green, says that the number of clients seeking to protect the reputation of their company and their goods against slander or libel has risen by more than 500 per cent in the past six months.“Businesses facing mounting financial difficulties seem to have made company executives increasingly desperate for sales, which some seek to secure by falsely running down their competitors,” says Mr Griffiths, who is based in George Green’s Cradley Heath offices.
“This practice has always gone on, and is often no more than mere exaggeration about the benefits of one product against another, but as the downturn deepens, we are now seeing more extreme examples, which go well beyond what is acceptable, or legal, and threaten to damage other businesses.”According to Mr Griffiths, some attempts at slander or libel are much more than just unsubstantiated gossip to a customer, which is hard to prove, but some individuals and companies are using the internet and emails to third parties to make damaging statements.
Good for Journalists because..
Obvious. Journalist’s can say more about people without the restriction or the threat of a defamation case. This means that stories and gossip that previously may have been risky now carry no such threat. The life of a journalist is easier too, sub-editors and reporters need not worry about breaching legal guidelines making copy quicker and more efficient, thus saving time and money for a newspaper or publication.
Bad for journalists because..
Weaker defamation laws are arguably bad news for journalism from an ethical perspective. Without the threat of libel, journalists and bloggers are free to publish whatever they wish, a trend that could threaten both the quality and decency of modern journalism. The PCC Code currently states that the press must be accurate and not publish misleading or distorted information. They must offer a fair opportunity to reply and respect an individual’s private or family life. Journalists are also advised to avoid prejudicial discrimination. Without defamatory legislation, these moral codes would be redundant. Another problem would be the loss of trust from readers, as truth would no longer be of utmost importance for newspapers, but instead a greater impetus would be placed on sensationalism and making a cheap buck. In essence, the art of journalism would be severely affected or lost altogether.
0 comments:
Post a Comment