Defamation and False Light
Newspapers are considered to be an important part of our daily life. It provides valuable information regarding politics, economy, entertainment, sports and commercial matters. However, there are certain legal responsibilities present in case of any publication in newspaper portal. It is important to point out the potential red flags with an intention to clarify the legal risks related to the publication. The defamatory responsibilities regarding the media publisher are named as Libel from the legal term (Barendt 2017). One of the most obvious risks regarding publication is defamation and false light. Claim for defamation will be placed if the publication poses a threat to the reputation of the claimant. However, in this case, the statement must be based on unreal fact and the matter should be based on the private life of the person. A true fact could not come under the purview of defamation. The law that governs the defamatory statement published in newspaper in United Kingdom is Defamation Act 2013 (Townend 2017). Further, the private information of any person published in newspaper will be treated as a breach of section 230 of Communications Decency Act. Another potential libel risk is that if any private information has been stated in the newspaper without the consent of the person and with an intention to gain profit, it will be treated as the breach of right of publicity. If the newspaper authority has used the name of a person without obtaining permission from him or her, the publisher has to face the liability for misappropriation (Watson, Roldan and Faza 2017). The information published by Sunday Watchdog shall be held liable under Article 10 of the European Conventions on Human Right. According to the Article, the newspaper could not take the plea under Freedom of Speech if the statement has violated the reputation of any person. The same principle has been codified under Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Further, the claimant can ask for compensation from the newspaper authority for invasion of privacy (Stephenson 2016).
There are two types of suit can be filed against defamatory statement in the newspaper such as civil proceeding and criminal proceeding. The person against whom the defamatory statement has been published can be sued the newspaper (Hall?Lipsy and Malanga 2017). In addition, if the person against whom the statement has been published is a public figure, the Government of the state could take proper legal action against the publisher of the newspaper. Therefore, considering the facts of the given case study, it can be stated that the Minister can file a suit against the newspaper under the claim for invasion of privacy. He can only file the case under the defamation ground if he can prove that the statement made in the newspaper is false (Jordan 2016). Further, as he is a public face and one of the imminent members of the Parliament, the government can sue the newspaper authority for breaching the privacy acts.
Breach of Privacy and Right of Publicity
According to the Defamation Act 2003, number of defences can be taken in case of libel. The burden of proving the defamatory facts are laid on the claimant and he has to prove that the publication made by the newspaper is false. Otherwise, the newspaper will not be liable under the acts of defamation. Further, if the opinion published in the newspaper has been regarded as a statement of opinion and if the publisher can prove that the statements are important for public interest, it can be a good defence ground (Lodder and Murray 2015). The minister is a public figure and any illicit relationship will be posed a great threat for the public interest. The current newspaper is also advised to take a defence by proving the factual truth of the published statement. The newspaper will be held liable under defamation if the Minister can prove that the statements are false. Further, if the statement published in newspaper will come under the lights of absolute privilege, no malicious prosecution could be taken against it (Jones and Lidsky 2016). Apart from all the defences, there are certain other defences too. If the newspaper authority could prove that the alleged statements are an expression of opinion and not a mere statement of fact, claim for defamation cannot be made against them. In New York Times Co. v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964), it has been held that if the statement has been made against any public figure, the statement should be recklessly disregarding the truth. This process is known as actual malice. If the malice could not be proved, it will be considered as a defence to the newspaper.
Certain steps should be followed to reduce the libel risks which are stated as under:
- Sufficient awareness is required to be taken at the time of publishing a statement;
- The statement which can be proved by the newspaper should be published;
- In case of any unknown matters, allegations should not be made;
- The newspaper authority should be cautious in case of publishing untrue facts;
- The story writer should have to take the advantage of privilege defence;
- The acts of the newspaper authority should be based on ethical ground.
If the facts stated in a newspaper is infringed the privacy of any person, the statement will be considered as a direct breach to the privacy. The rules of defamation will not be applicable in this case. Therefore, even if the published article is true, the act will be come under the purview of breach of privacy. The information stated in the newspaper will be treated as a violation to the rights of publicity if the statement has been made without the permission of the person (Hanna, Dodd and Morrison 2016). The term private facts denote information about personal life. The personal matter includes the sexual activities or medical condition of a person (Rolph 2016). In this case, it has been observed that the alleged newspaper has published about the sexual affairs of the minister. Therefore, it can be stated that the newspaper has breached privacy principle in this case. Further, if the person is a public figure, any statement published in the newspaper regarding his private life will be treated as breach of actual privacy. However, the newspaper authorities will be restricted from taking the plea of freedom of speech in case of breach of privacy.
Legal Actions Against Defamatory Statement
In UK, there are certain rules regarding the activeness of any proceedings. In case of criminal act, the process is stated to be activated when the alleged person has been arrested. On the other hand, in case of civil acts, the case becomes active after the date of trial has been fixed by the proper court of justice (Scott 2016). The general interpretation of the term “commencement of legal proceeding” means the process of legal standing over a matter has been initiated. In case of civil lawsuit, the case has been started immediately after the case has been filed by plaintiff before court of justice. On the other hand, the main purpose of the commencement of proceeding is to enforce legal provision in the matter. However, in this case, it has not been mentioned that the case against the newspaper has been fixed for trial or not; but it has been stated that the Minister has already commenced the proceeding against the newspaper authority (Hall?Lipsy and Malanga 2017). Therefore, it can be stated that the case filed by the Minister is active.
There are two types of contempt of court can be possible in this case; the first one is statutory contempt and the other is common law contempt. According to Contempt of Court Act 1981, if the publication of any matter creates substantial risk to others and if serious injustice caused by such publication, the said act will be come under the purview statutory contempt of court (File 2017). It has been observed in this case that the matter of the publications have certain potentiality to create statutory contempt of court.
England- The Minister of State for Arts has resigned from his post after a newspaper publication made in the Sunday Watchdog about his illicit affairs with an Italian film star. The topic was became a hot cake in the state as the minister was hold an important position in the Parliament. However, the matter was criticised by many politicians and it has been observed that different expressions have been made from the different stages of the society. The minister named Ernest Riskitt has resigned from his post with a justification in the press association. He has mentioned that he has commenced legal proceedings against the newspaper and will take proper action for revealing private life stories in the newspaper without his consent. The publication has created an adverse situation as against Alicia Beddi and she is forced to change her residence after such publication.
Defenses Against Libel Charges
On the other hand, the other members of the Parliament have supported the views of the alleged minister and criticised the statement made by the newspaper. Jas Patel, the correspondent of Blanktown has raised his voice against the newspaper publication. Additionally, Mrs Lorna Backup, the regional chairperson of the party has expressed her anger by stating the article as a defamatory statement. She has mentioned that the article was “scurrilous in nature”.
Another Member of Parliament, Mr Dennis Scanner has asked the Prime Minister about the rights of the newspaper authority regarding the private life of ministers. He has asserted the fact whether any legal proceeding can be taken against such invasion of privacy or not. he has further requested the Prime Minister to take sufficient legal action against the usage of bugging devices and long-lens camera for interfering in the personal life of the Parliament members.
Reference:
Barendt, E., 2017. Defamation Law.
File, P., 2017. Retract, Expand: Libel Law, the Professionalization of Journalism, and the Limits of Press Freedom at the Turn of the Twentieth Century. Communication Law and Policy, 22(3), pp.275-308.
Hall?Lipsy, E. and Malanga, S., 2017. Defamation lawsuits: academic sword or shield?. EMBO molecular medicine, p.e201708489.
Hall?Lipsy, E. and Malanga, S., 2017. Defamation lawsuits: academic sword or shield?. EMBO molecular medicine, p.e201708489.
Hanna, M., Dodd, M. and Morrison, J., 2016. McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists and Essential Public Affairs for Journalists Pack. Oxford University Press.
Johnson, V.R., 2016. Comparative Defamation Law: England and the United States. U. Miami Int’l & Comp. L. Rev., 24, p.1.
Jones, R.A. and Lidsky, L.B., 2016. Of Reasonable Readers and Unreasonable Speakers: Libel Law in a Networked World.
Jordan, R., 2016. The Appropriate Balance between Privacy and Freedom of Expression under UK Law: Just Where Does It Lie When Considering the Actions of the Press. QMLJ, 7, p.16.
Lodder, A.R. and Murray, A.D., 2015. A primer on the law of internet communication and content: from the UK and Dutch perspective.
Rolph, D., 2016. Reputation, celebrity and defamation law. Routledge.
Scott, A., 2016. An unwholesome layer cake: intermediary liability in English defamation and data protection law. Comparative Defamation and Privacy Law.
Sharland, M., Butler, K., Cant, A., Dagan, R., Davies, G., de Groot, R., Elliman, D., Esposito, S., Finn, A., Galanakis, M. and Giaquinto, C. eds., 2016. Manual of childhood infections: the blue book. Oxford University Press.
Stephenson, R., 2016. A crisis of democratic accountability: public libel law and the checking function of the press(Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford).
Townend, J., 2017. Data protection and the ‘right to be forgotten’in practice: a UK perspective. International Journal of Legal Information, 45(1), pp.28-33.
Watson, R., Roldan, R. and Faza, A., 2017. Toward Normalization of Defamation Law: The UK Defamation Act of 2013 and the US SPEECH Act of 2010 as Responses to the Issue of Libel Tourism. Communication Law and Policy, 22(1), pp.1-63.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
