The printed media and libel.

[Danthus]

I am just watching a program on the BBC about libel.

To cut a long story short there is an acceptance from the barristers that are taking part in the program that unless you are reasonably wealthy you have little chance of taking a case of libel to court.

The way that costs and financial awards work mean if you do win you are still likely to be out of pocket. Of course the tabloids and the broadsheets have huge swathes lawyers and money at their disposal and even if the lose, there losses are insignificant.

To me, the libel laws need reforming but what I wouldn't like to see is the no win no fee brigade get on the bandwagon.

Secondly, and more importantly, how do we go about stopping the media printing libellous articles, sometimes knowingly doing so.

 

[platinum87]

I believe I disagree with the definition of a libellous article.

 

[Detroit_Waves]

I read an article recently about a chap who took a case of libel to court against one of the papers (could have been a magazine, but I think it was one of the big players). Basically he reported that the whole ordeal took him to the point of bankruptcy, and even conversations with the papers lawyers, he was told in not so many words, that if he didnt accept the amount of money they were offering to stop the case going further in court, that they would be able to drag the case out much further to the point that he couldnt afford to continue, and in the end, settled on some small amount along the lines of 20k, as he couldnt actually afford to go any further.

It is a shame that these grey areas of Law exist where only the wealthy are able to succeed, and I think some sort of reform should take place at some point soon. Especially as in the case above, especially as the guy bringing the case, wasnt actually even asking for money in the first place, he just wanted the paper to admit that what was said, was completely fictional. I guess if journalists are allowed the freedom to make a certain amount of their reports up, then papers should at least have the stand to say were sorry, a mistake has been made. Most of the time this would save the company paying out also.

However, I guess this is the way bigger companies will always work, and im sure even with a reform, a loophole would be found, making it still, unattainable for the regular Joe to make too much of a stand.

 

[Biohazard]

Do you know what got me?

The double hypocrisy of Lembit.

Firstly, he lapped it up to start with and he doesn't have much of a case.

Secondly, for him to decry the unfair system of no recourse with the press generally, how does that suit with his power when he was an MP when no one outside of that chamber able to have any recourse against a lie or smear or any other 'mishap' an MP may make in the house or by him himself. Parliamentary protection.

I don't hear him banging on about that?

I think the press situation and legal arrangements around defamation is an absolute joke, but what can you do?

Protest?

Those outlets will just keep printing lies, it is their business of course.

 

[Edrof]

The press in this country is a disgrace and often seemingly a law unto themselves; anything that would give them a kick in the botty is a good thing.

 

[Danthus]

Do you know what got me?

The double hypocrisy of Lembit.

Firstly, he lapped it up to start with and he doesn't have much of a case.

Secondly, for him to decry the unfair system of no recourse with the press generally, how does that suit with his power when he was an MP when no one outside of that chamber able to have any recourse against a lie or smear or any other 'mishap' an MP may make in the house or by him himself. Parliamentary protection.

I don't hear him banging on about that?

I think the press situation and legal arrangements around defamation is an absolute joke, but what can you do?

Protest?

Those outlets will just keep printing lies, it is their business of course.

Ah, you watched it then.

With Lembit, I thought cake and eat it too.

As for Cheryl Gascoigne, I was quite shocked by the amount of lies that she could clearly demonstrate that were printed, and were are not talking about bending the truth, these were out and out lies.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I believe I disagree with the definition of a libellous article.

Please elaborate.

As for reforming the libel laws, it's somewhat difficult in certain cases to establish whether the person committing the libel/slander would have a reasonable belief in its veracity. It may be worth revisiting in the manner of putting in a requirement similar to due diligence, if the person making the statement can demonstrate they've taken reasonable steps to prove the information is true before printing (even if it subsequently turns out to be false) then they are ok; if they cannot demonstrate this then perhaps the punishments need to be more severe, in the case of a newspaper possibly that they cannot publish for a set period of time (e.g. a day) along with the fine to (partially) compensate the injured party. It may also be worth considering that the punishments should be more directly tied to individuals if they cannot prove their reasonable belief in the correctness of the information.

 

[platinum87]

Please elaborate.

well google it gives me

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[1]

Then don't imply to be factual.

Calling someone a massive **** for example is not a fact, and cannot be proved wrong.

 

[semi-pro waster]

well google it gives me



Then don't imply to be factual.

Calling someone a massive **** for example is not a fact, and cannot be proved wrong.

That's part of the description, it's not the sole point that it hinges on. If someone makes a claim about someone that implies a negative about them then it can be defamatory. You've also got to remember the defences against defamation are (for England) threefold - justification (it's a true statement), it's fair comment (you could reasonably believe it) or it's a privileged communication (e.g. made in Parliament or a court of law). So if you want to call someone "a massive ****" then you might struggle to prove the truth of it and since it could damage their reputation it would pay to be a bit careful in using it especially if they're notably litigious - that it's not a fact doesn't help your defence in the slightest, at best you're then relying on it being a view you could reasonably hold.

Alternatively you can try out your interpretation of the law in the courts and see whether they agree with you or not.

 

[daz]

Most people would say that the libel laws in the UK need reigning back, just look at the Trafigura case for a good example.