Law Provisions for Journalists Facing Defamation Cases
The law of defamation exists to protect both the moral and
professional reputation of the individual from unjustified attacks.
The law tries to strike a balance between freedom of speech and a free
press with the protection of an individual's reputation.
Should journalists face defamation cases there are defences available.
Justification is one of these defences, to use this defence the
journalist must prove that what they have written is substantially
true. Before the defamation act of 1952 was passed, to succeed with a
defence of justification you had to prove the exact truth of every
defamatory statement made in the article in question. But now under
section 5 of the act, the law states that the defence will not fail
merely because the article contains some minor inaccuracies. However
difficulties still arise as it is not the task of the claimant to show
the article is untrue, but the task of the defendant ie. The
journalist to prove the words written are true. The name
'justification' is misleading because the defendant does not need to
show he had a moral or social reason for publishing the words, the
fact they are true is satisfactory. The journalist has to prove the
article in question is 'on balance of probabilities' which is a lower
requirement than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. An example of this is the
1994 case between television actress, Gillian Taylforth and the Sun.
The Sun used the defence of justification successfully after they
published a front page splash entitled 'TV Kathy's sex romp'. The
article stated Gillian and her boyfriend were having sex in a parked
...
... middle of paper ...
... defame people. Just by
looking through the daily paper and celebrity magazines one can see a
huge amount of defamatory material. Celebrities are more of a threat
to journalists than those of modest means eg. A journalist may not
hesitate in defaming a person on income support as there is little
they could do with their limited funds. Newspapers often have to
consider whether they can afford not to publish a story, a scoop on a
celebrity may sell millions of papers so they stand to make money even
if they are taken to court and have to pay damages. Sometimes the
story is worth facing a defamation case.
Bibliography
McNae, Essential Law for Journalists, 2003, 17th edition
Peter Carey, Media Law, 1999, 2nd edition
Tom Crone, Law and the Media, 1998, 3rd edition
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
Defamation is a tort action that has been widely recognized, nonetheless, it has only been within recent years, that the concept has been increasingly utilized in the employment context (Mcconnell, 2000, p. 78) . However, it is useful to first lay out the elements of the defamation tort as they occur in the employment setting. First, there must be a false, and defamatory statement. A statement is defamatory if it harms the employee's reputation or discourages others; such as potential employers, from wanting to have any contact with the employee. Second, the statement, be it written or oral, must be "published," that is, transmitted to a third party. Next, the defendant/employer must be responsible for the publication of the false and defamatory statement. Last, defamation damage to the plaintiff must occur; caused either by the statement itself, or by its actionable
“The Reporter’s Privilege Compendium: An Introduction.” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, n.d. Web. 15 November 2013.
Leslie Silko certainly makes accusations that some could argue far exceed the boundaries of journalism integrity, and fail to deliver with evidence to back them up.
The court thought that the claim was in no way believable so it could not be considered defamation or libel. The real question is how far can the 1st Amendment freedom of press really go? By what measures is something deemed as being unbelievable, especially in the gullible-plagued world we live in today? This case is significant because it clears up the issue and gives a better understanding of the issue, but not
In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.
Media coverage of trials in the digital age has become a considerable issue in the UK and traditional legal remedies to reduce the influence of the press on jurors’ bias appear to be inefficient. In recent years, the discussion of fair trial and free press has been raised due to the fact that in some criminal cases especially high profile criminal cases, the right of defendants has been infringed. High profile criminal case can be loosely described as a case of the suspect who is a well-known person such as a celebrity, an actor, and a businessman as well as a case, which receives massive attention even though the accused
The author’s claims are strong enough because the situations weren’t casual ones. For example, being mistaken for a murderer is not something that is taken lightly; the reporter who was in that situation could’ve been put behind bars for something he didn’t do, all because he happened to be a man of
For Eonline, journalists unify the community. Journalists are the heart of Eonline, without them there would not be headliners for their members. On the contrary, biased reporting has been a slight issue with Eonline. Eonline loves to give their members the latest news but it should not be expense of favored opinions. In particular, an Eonline member, Alex Wenger, is unhappy with some biased articles on certain celebrities. In his blog Wenger compares articles from Eonline and TMZ. He noticed that Eonline is especially biased with celebrity Kim Kardashian. In an article, TMZ wrote: “By the grace of God, the 32-year-old mom-to-be somehow managed to stay upright in a pair of sky high stiletto heels.:” as Eonline wrote: “Kim chose an outfit that minimized the belly growth, and praised her curves”. It is obvious that both websites are biased in their articles. Biased reporting will contribute to members looking elsewhere for their pop culture
The concept of Criminal Defamation is a hot piece of cake in front of the Supreme Court. To get an insight, we need to know “what defamation is?” Defamation is derived from a Latin word ‘Diffamare’ which means ‘Spreading evil report about someone’. It causes damage to another person’s reputation. Defamation occurred in spoken words or gestures is slander, whereas if done in written or printed form, it's libel. Defamation is punishable as a civil wrong under The Law of Tort and as a criminal wrong under sections 499 and 500 of The Indian Penal Code. Section 499 and 500 of IPC makes defamation punishable, with a maximum Imprisonment of two-year or with fine, or with both.
However, the free speech encouraged by the First Amendment will inevitably produce speech that is critical of those public figures who, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of public concern. (Milkovich, 2703); (Hustler, 879). Their heightened position in society subjects them to “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasant sharp attacks”. (Milkovich, 2703); (Hustler, 880). Courts have struggled to maintain the balance between the right to free speech and the right to redress attacks upon one’s reputation, and therefore limit what one can publish about a public figure by encouraging responsible journalism. (Hustler, 880); (West, 1014). The First Amendment embraces two concepts: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act. (Ballard, 886). American citizens are free to believe what they cannot prove; thus, one’s pure opinions are constitutionally protected from liability. (U.S. Const. amend. I); (Ballard, 886). Nevertheless, when a statement asserts facts, or opinions that imply facts, the publisher has a duty to verify these assertions before publishing them as true. (West,
However in court the judge wouldn't allow Tebbit to introduce evidence that the council were overspending which meant that the defendant was incapable of supporting his allegation. In cases where many allegations have been made section.5 of the defamation act 1952 states that the case shouldn't fail "by reason that the truth of every charge is not proved". Meaning substantiating the truth in every allegation may not be possible but this won't threaten the validity of the case. Fair comment The fair comment defence is sometimes known as the critics defence as its' designed to protect the rights of the press to state valid opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity, political debate, public figures and general affairs.
The Law of Defamation provides legal protection for an intangible asset which means one's reputation. Defamation occurs when a person expresses words or actions that may lower another person's reputation in the eye of public. Under the Malaysia Law which based on English Common Law liability, there are two types of defamation, libel and slander. Libel occur when word are expressed in a permanent form which can be any kind of form usually visible to the eye, for example, newspaper, book, audio record, e-mail or picture while Slander happen when such word expressed in a temporary form, such as spoken, actions and body movements. In civil cases of defamation, when an individual sues another individual for defamation, the Defamation Act 1957 is applicable.
The death of Princess Diana on August 31, 1997 shocked the world; her death was
In extreme situations, journalists choose the angle they can find, tick the boxes to the news worthiness, but never having a stand. According to Kempf, journalists fulfill certain criteria of newsworthiness and fake empirical evidence, which implements propaganda and in the journalists’ defense “that it did not matter the pictures were faked since they only showed what people already ‘knew’ and since they served the goal of opening the eyes of the public” (Kempf 2002, p. 60). Various examples from the War on Terror, where journalists and reporters would fake evidence just to gain more audiences but examples like this could elevate the issues, and it is as if this responsibility of Journalism of Attachment only adds fuel to the fire and this is done in the name of peace (Kempf 2002).
"Journalism Ethics Online Journalism Ethics Gatekeeping." Journalism Ethics for the Global Citizen. Web. 05 Dec. 2010. .