1. “Every repetition of a libel is fresh publication” (McNae's 20th edition of Essential Law for Journalists). Give an example of this from legal history.
Answer:
Every repetition is a fresh publication. The journalists is liable for repeating a defamatory statement made by an interviewee or source.
Former West Midlands police officers were accused of fabricating evidence in the Birmingham Six case, but the prosecution of those officers was abandoned, and the sentence convicted was later cleared in an appeal.
After the abandonment of that prosecution, the Sunday Telegraph reported one of the three officers as referring to the Birmingham Six and saying: “In our eyes, their guilt is beyond doubt.”
The Sun newspaper published an article based upon the Sunday Telegraph's interviews. It later carried an apology and was reported to have paid £1 million in damages.
2. A gang has been jailed for various offences and as a result a newspaper is preparing a feature on local crime. With the feature it has a picture of a red-light district in its town.
The picture shows clearly vehicles being driven in a street or being at a kerb with people apparently talking to drivers. People are also walking on a pavement
What legal danger exists in publishing the clear picture and how can it be avoided. The answer must show how conclusion are reached.
Answer:
The legal danger is juxtaposition.
The picture will mislead readers that the kerb is the place where the gang committed a crime. The drivers, people talking to drivers, and other people walking on a pavement, might become victims while the crime committed, but in effect, this might not be the case.
The feature story its self might be accurate, but when juxtaposed with other material then might bear defamatory meaning.
To avoid it, the newspaper needs to get an accurate picture of showing the gang committed a crime or publishing the article without a picture.
3. A dozen inmates of a local prison are staging a roof-top protest.
They are displaying a large banner which reads: “Stop Brutality by governor and staff of D wing” A newspaper publishes a photograph of the protesting prisoners and their banner. Consider any possible legal pitfall.
Answer:
The legal pitfall is as the newspaper only publishes one side of the argument, that is, the prisoners' protest and its banner, without examining whether what they had complained is truthful or not, it might resulted in being sued by an individual member of the local prison service.
It is possible for individual members or officers of the institutions of local or central government to sue.
Though the institution itself, the House of Lords ruled, could not sue for defamation in respect of their “governmental and administrative functions” because this would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.
A judge in the House of Lords said: “A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day-to-day management of its affairs.
If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring proceedings for defamation."
In this case, if the allegation is untruthful, the the head of the prison service could sue the newspaper.
4. A reporter hears that a local solicitor “has retired” after many years in practice.
He does not check this rumour, but writes a story which is published saying that the solicitor “has retired”. The rumour turns out to be untrue.
Can the solicitor take any action against the newspaper for libel or under any other law? State your reasons.
Answer:
The solicitor can take action against the newspaper for libel.
Because the reporter published untruthful statement about the solicitor, and will badly affect the solicitor's business.
In this case, though I do not think the reporter had disparaged his/her professional practice, the solicitor can take the newspaper to court because of the false statement.
5. Explain how a photograph or caption, by the context in which it is published could be libellous.
Answer:
If the photograph or caption is juxtaposed with a statement, which stands alone is innocuous, might bear defamatory meaning.
Journalists, particularly for sub-editors and those dealing with production, must take care how picture interact with each other, and with any commentary.
An example on juxtaposition: The magazine Stationery Trade News accurately reported the counterfeiting of some stationery products and named some of those responsible.
A company won huge damages against the magazine because it was named in what the editor considered to be a separate part of the article, dealing with another issue, but the jury found that the allegations could be understood as referring to the claimant company as well.
The copy referring to the claimants, a firm of envelope manufacturers, was sandwiched between the allegations of counterfeiting and the pictures illustrating counterfeiting.
6. (a). What in defamation law is an “inference”?
Answer:
An inference is a statement with a secondary meaning which can b understood by someone without special knowledge who “reads between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs”.
For example, an inference is created if someone says: “I saw the editor leave the pub, and he was swaying and his speech was slurred”.
The inference here is indisputably that the editor was drunk, though the term 'drunk' was not used. But for some statements there may be dispute about whether a defamatory inference was created.
(b) What is meant, in the law of libel, by an innuendo? Give an example.
Answer:
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.
For example, to say “I saw our editor go into that house on the corner of Sleep Street' would not in itself be defamatory, unless the communication is to someone who has special knowledge that the house is a brothel.
The journalist would be mistaken to believe that use of inference or innuendo is any safer in libel law than making a direct allegation.
7. A reporter travelling on a train a few seats away from a councillor sees that the councillor is unable to produce a valid ticket when approached by an inspector, and is required to pay a penalty fare. The reporter writes a story for his newspaper. It appears under the headline: “Councillor fined for fare dodging”.
Do you consider this a safe headline? If not, give your reasons and write what you consider to be safe headline.
Answer:
I do not think the headline is safe. Although the reporter literally sees the councillor cannot produce a valid ticket, and required to pay a penalty fare by an inspector.
He did not, according to the materials, conduct further investigation why the councillor cannot produce a valid ticket, there might be a different reason instead of the councillor's cheat action. “fare dodging” here I think emphasized councillor's dishonest way to avoid buying ticket.
If the fact turns out not as the story describes, then the councillor can take the reporter to court.
A safer headline might be something like: Councillor fined unable to produce valid ticket.
8. Under the headline “The shame of Oxdown Close” a local newspaper runs a story about partner-swapping by couples living in a cul-de-sac in its area. It does not name any of the couples alleged to be involved, or include any house numbers. A couple who live in the road, and deny any involvement in such behaviour, threaten to sue the newspaper for libel. Consider its position.
Answer:
The couple can take the newspaper to court.
A libel claimant suing over a published statement must prove three things about it: 1) it is defamatory, 2) it may be reasonable understood to refer to him, 3) it has been published to a third person.
The test of 'identification' is whether the words would reasonably lead people who know the claimant to believe he/she was the person referred to.
It is important for the newspaper to state precisely of the house number, names of the couple, occupation, ages. Otherwise a innocent couple, like the ones in this case, might appear in the court to sue the newspaper would have damaged their reputation.
Journalists would be mistaken if they believe they can play safe by not naming the person, but such an omission may prove no defence.
No comments:
Post a Comment