ipl-logo

Truth Defense Is Still Relevant To The Media

746 Words3 Pages

The defense is desirable on the whole as it addresses gaps in the existing defenses of truth, honest opinion and the qualified privilege extension for the media. It also provides a direct and cost-saving solution for those who are unjustly attacked. However, the common law should clarify the boundaries within which the defense operates. In order to use the truth defense, the defendant must prove either the truth of any facts in the publication or that the publication taken as a whole was in substance true. While this may support a large number of defendants, it may not protect those who seek to reply to what they believe are fabricated statements. For example Bowen-Rowlands concerned a publication portraying a well-known deceased man in a …show more content…

The Courts protects the speech of the initial defamer by requiring that a plaintiff satisfy a very high threshold to obtain an injunction to stop publication of defamatory statements. As freedom of expression is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, courts do not grant injunctions unless there is no tenable defense available. Accordingly, where a person has failed to stop publication of defamatory statements, the common law is justified in protecting their freedom of expression by allowing them to respond proportionally to the statements made by their …show more content…

While in the UK, Reynolds permits the media to discuss matters of public interest under qualified privilege, the qualified privilege available to the media in this country, as developed in Lange, allows privilege only for political discussions. Therefore, if a journalist’s credibility is attacked by another media outlet, they are unable to reply under general privilege. Denigrating comments about the media can lower public faith in their work and so they should be allowed a proportionate response. While the defense is necessary, it lacks clarity as to what equates to proportional reply and what is unprotected defamation. There is conflicting authority as to how much leeway the reply is given. In Chinese Herald Ltd the Court referred to the privilege as “a shield of defence, not a weapon attack.” This suggests that the ambit of reply is restricted. However, Alexander referred to the defence as “privilege to hit back when one’s reputation is attacked.” This indicates that the reply may be given wider

Show More
Related
1052 Words | 5 Pages

In the case McCann v. The Ottawa Sun, 1993 CanLII 5507 (ON SC), the General Division of the Ontario Court was correct when stating the published words by The Ottawa Sun were insufficient to carry the Mayor of Pembroke’s action of defamation. At the same time, the columnist’s comments can be considered a humorous remark, which is a prove individuals in Canada have freedom of speech, which is the ability to communicate ideas without the interference of the state. To establish a cause of action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove: the statement published was defamatory, meaning the words bring the person’s reputation into hatred, contempt or ridicule; the words, in fact, referred to the plaintiff and finally, the words have been published, meaning somebody – other than the plaintiff – had access to the statement. In 1993, the Mayor of Pembroke, Terance McCann, claimed damages for libel against The Ottawa Sun

Read More
1239 Words | 5 Pages

He also supported this tort as using some justice opinions. Responding to the public figure argument, Grutman noted that being a public figure should not take away someone’s rights as a human being. If libel could not protect public figures from verbal assault, then the Court should support the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress to protect

Read More
917 Words | 4 Pages

Rothman scolds the media for physically participating in the riots. It proposes that the media themselves are lawless criminals, and invalidates many stories. Similarly James Fallows accuses the media of defying ethics in his article “Learning to Love the (Shallow, Divisive, Unreliable) New Media” with the statement, “Gawker posted the pictures and headline, “I Had a One Night Stand with Christine O’Donnell” (36). The headline from Gawker illustrates the lengths that journalists will go to get a story. The headline suggests that the media destroys people’s livelihood in order to sell a story, even if there is no basis for the story or accusation.

Read More
461 Words | 2 Pages

Nichele Rascoe MCO 300 –Media Law and Ethics Dr. Breslin Name of Case: New York Times v. Sullivan Citation: 273 Ala. 656, 144 So.2d 25, reversed and remanded Date of Decision: March 9th, 1964 Vote: 9-0 Author of Opinion: Justice Brennan Legal Topic: Freedom of Speech Posture of the Case: Sullivan (plaintiff) v. New York Times (defendant). Sullivan is holding New York Times libel for printing a false advertisement about the civil rights movement. The trial judge explained to the jury that many of the statements were “libelous per se” which is to falsely claim that an individual committed a crime of moral turpitude. The court ruled in favor of the New York Times, however, Sullivan presented to the Supreme Court.

Read More
122 Words | 1 Pages

In the case of Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Lange), the High Court ruled that as the development of the common law in Australia cannot run counter to constitutional imperatives, the common law rules of qualified privilege should properly reflect the requirements of ss 7, 24, 64, 128 and related sections of the Australian Constitution. Freedom of speech is not absolute. This can be seen in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution whereby it has been held not to protect all speech like obscene publications or speech inciting imminent lawless action. Australian common law has long recognised limitations to free speech, for instance, those in relation to the criminal law of incitement and conspiracy, and in obscenity

Read More
976 Words | 4 Pages

I agree with the court decision, while criminal sanctions and damage awards have a somewhat different impact on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech from dismissal from employment. It is apparent that the threat of dismissal from public employment is nonetheless a potent means of inhibiting

Read More
1021 Words | 5 Pages

The Internet is too vast, and with a single click of a mouse, the government has access to the free flow of information. The second reason why the Sterling case might have continued without Risen’s testimony is because subpoenas are becoming less and less important. According to Lucy Dalglish, former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, “Instead of issuing subpoenas, prosecutors are increasingly executing search warrants or other court orders for reporters’ material or for information held by others. It is easy to retrieve- sometimes with no one’s knowledge.” (“in an age” could start a new paragraph and you can reword the quote)In an age of information, the Internet can severely impinge on the freedom of the press.

Read More
448 Words | 2 Pages

First, the words were defamatory materials as to lower victim’s reputation. Second, the defamatory materials were referred to the victim and published by the tortfeasor. Last, the defamatory materials were published

Read More
969 Words | 4 Pages

Later the Justice Department issued him a letter clearing him of all chargers. Finally, he sued all the media and newspapers that had implied accusations. The reporter that reports defamation must be accountable for destroying someone’s life. Defamation by implication "situations where all factual statements in a news story are probably true, but the overall gist of the story is false” (Hindman, 2007).

Read More
1199 Words | 5 Pages

Particularly, in the context of a libel action initiated by a public official against critics of his official conduct. First, the Supreme Court used historical interpretation to overturn the ruling of the Alabama court. The Alabama court heavily relied on the assertion that the U.S. Constitution does not safeguard libelous publications. However, this assertion remains contentious as previous Court decisions had resulted in an equal division, leaving the question undecided. Hence, employing libel laws to penalize expressions critical of the conduct of public officials remains unconstitutional.

Read More
919 Words | 4 Pages

In colonial America, the common law of criminal libel was equally separated against the selfish colonists, making the “open” discussion of public issues hazardous, if not impossible, except when colonists opposed the government (Levy). With the end of the Sedition Act  the federal government was strengthened. This was not the case, however, with local and state governments seeking to eliminate political criticism. There was very high tension in the Colonial era. The government strengthening didn’t necessarily mean the end or the beginning for the freedom of press and the first Amendment.

Read More
1204 Words | 5 Pages

The article argues that the courts should only view harmful speech in the same eyes and rule them the same as if they were conduct harms. The source then discusses how many scholars believe that freedom of speech only applies when the benefits outweigh the harms, regarding what is being said. The article does a good job of approaching the problem through a semi-neutral lens. The article clearly lets its opinion be known at times; however, it approaches the opposite side of the argument in a fair manner. The article will be incredibly beneficial because it discusses when freedom of speech should not apply with a neutral approach.

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

People say things that others don’t agree with, or they say things that are disrespectful,but that doesn’t mean there’s a law against it, because everyone has a write to speech. ‘’Or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. ’’ What this is trying to say is that you can say anything to anyone you want even if their powerful. But you can get in trouble if you say something threatening.

Read More
534 Words | 3 Pages

What does paternalism mean? Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and protected or motivated by a claim that the person delayed with will be better off or protected from harm. The issue of paternalism rises with respect to limitations by the law such as anti-drug legislation, the required wearing of seatbelts, and in medical contexts by the suppression of relevant information concerning a patient’s condition by physicians. At the theoretical level it raises questions of how persons should be treated when they are less than fully rational.

Read More
1168 Words | 5 Pages

There are instances when governments and law enforcement agencies can curtail that right if the expression being shared is one that damages public moral, and the reputations of others (Great Britain, Lords Select Communications committee, 2014). It is the duty of the police to find a careful balance when providing justice to those wronged online, without setting too low a precedent and prosecuting en masse anyone who may have said anything unnecessarily and potentially hurtful. The authorities must determine the severity of incidents and whether they are damaging enough to warrant prosecution, but also at what point an incident can no longer be tolerated as a factually inaccurate honest

Read More

More about Truth Defense Is Still Relevant To The Media

Related Topics

Open Document