Assignment two - Law
Journalism laws will always be important in today’s society but specifically due to the digital age. Since the developments of technology including the use of online articles rather than articles only being printed on newspapers and magazines and the rise of social media giving people the platform to say pretty much whatever they want to a wider audience. In the digital age where people publish a lot more online moves away from the more known areas of law like defamation, libel, contempt of court and privilege and a creates a whole new world of law in journalism.
Defamation is a law which allows individuals, groups of individuals, firms or companies to sue when there reputation is being damaged. Someone can be defamed when material is published in various forms which isn’t truthful or portrays the accused in a bad light. People can sue so long as the material can be reasonably understood to be referring to them. Something is defamatory if it lowers the accused in in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public and/or causes them to be shunned or avoided. Defamatory also is when it disparages them in their office, trade or profession and/or exposes them to hatred ridicule or contempt. The Defamation Act 2013 which came into effect in England and Wales on the 1st of January 2013 has since made several changes. Under the new law claimants have to show that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, ‘serious harm’ to their reputation. If the claimant is a body that trades for profit, such as a company, serious harm is defined as ‘serious financial losses. It is up to the courts to decide how they interpret “serious harm” in individual cases.
The UK Defamation Act 1996, exists to protect the reputation and good standing of an individual. In order to pursue a successful defamation suit the claimant must: prove that they have a reputation which can be damaged and be able to show that their reputation has been damaged. The 1996 version of the act was replaced by the 2013 version which changed a number of Defamation procedures. All defamation cases under the Senior Courts Act 1981 in the Queen’s Bench Division, and the County Courts Act 1984, which were “tried with a jury”, unless the trial requires prolonged examination of documents &c, are now “tried without a jury” unless the court orders otherwise. Such cases are referred through a Defamation Recognition Commission (DRC) to a new Independent Regulatory Board (IRB), to provide arbitration services. The Courts should take into account, when awarding costs and damages, whether either party in a dispute has chosen not to use the arbitration service. A successful party is required to pay all of the proceedings costs, if such a party unreasonably refused to use the arbitration service. Judgment awards of exemplary damages, where a defendant is guilty of breach of a defendant’s rights, can take into account whether either party refused to use, or join the arbitration service. Courts should take into account whether defendant first sought advice from the IRB before publication. It was changed to give a better protection to people expressing their opinions are to come into force in England and Wales.
There are many ways in which someone can be defamed and in various forms. Some of them include through newspapers, magazines and other printed media, radio and television broadcasting, email and through the web which includes social media, blogging sites and online forums. You can be put at risk of defaming someone even if you repeat defamatory comments previously made or published by others, for example if you quote a defamatory comment on social media. However the claimant would need to have evidential proof that the defamatory material is aimed at them even if they aren’t specifically named. Some of the defences have been amended by the latest legislation, which includes the following; the person who publishes the comments must prove what is said is true. The opinions must be completely factual and genuine as well as how much the publication is public interest.
An example of a libel case which involves defamation is the Frankie Boyle case. The sweary comic won £54,650 in damages after a High Court jury found that the Daily Mirror had libelled him by calling him a “racist comedian”. This is a strong case of defamation as the famous newspaper completely tarnished the comedians identity as being accused of racism is an extremely serious thing. Contempt of Court is a phrase which covers a wide variety of conduct which undermines or has the potential to undermine the course of justice, and the procedures which are designed to deal with them. The Law Commission’s consultation paper on contempt of court was published in November 2012 focuses on a number of areas which are as follows. Contempt by publication is based around the balance the right of a defendant to a fair trial with the right of the publisher to freedom of expression. There are also concerns that the procedures for dealing with this form of contempt may not be as fair and efficient as possible. The impact of the new media also relates to Contempt of Court which is contained in the 1981 Act, as the act pre-dates the internet and the concerns that the current law cannot adequately deal with contempt’s committed through the new media. Contempt’s committed by jurors relates to the need to ensure that the laws and procedures strike a balance between the public interest in the administration of justice, the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the rights of the jurors concerned.
Reporting restrictions is under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Reporting restrictions exist reports of committal proceedings, preparatory hearings (Crown Court) in serious fraud cases, divorce and matrimonial cases and certain sex cases. Courts also have power to order the postponement of the reporting of a case while there is danger of it causing prejudice, usually when people are tried separately on charges arising from the same incident or where the accused is also a defendant in other proceedings. The restrictions do not apply if the accused person applies to have them lifted, the magistrates decide not to commit, or the court decides to deal with the case summarily. If the court commits some people and tries others summarily, evidence relevant to those dealt with summarily may be reported. If one or more of the accused wants the restrictions lifted and others want them to stay, the court gives a ruling. Reports from divorce courts and magistrates' court matrimonial hearings may contain only names, addresses and occupations of the parties and witnesses, a concise statement of the charges, defence and counter-charges on which evidence has been given, submissions and decisions on points of law, the judgment and any observations of the court. Even when there is no legal prohibition, complainants in other sex cases should be identified only after reference to the news desk or senior production staff.
Following the sentencing of Venables over child pornography charges, Mr Justice Bean reiterated the view of the courts that revealing his new identity risked endangering his life. But some media groups argued the reporting restrictions were draconian and an affront to the principle of open justice. The judge did relax reporting restrictions on naming the region, Cheshire, where Venables lived at the time he was recalled to prison in March this year, as well as the probation service that was supervising him. But Mr Justice Bean reiterated that the reporting restrictions to protect Venables' new identity, his address before he was recalled to prison, his whereabouts now, and his appearance, still stand and are permanent. Reporting restrictions have been in place ever since Venables and Robert Thompson, who were convicted for the murder of James Bulger, were released on license with new identities in 2001. At that time, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss granted a high court injunction to prevent publication of their new identities on the basis that there was a real possibility of serious physical harm or death from vengeful members of the public. Revealing the identity of the James Bulger murderers was done because of how high the public interest was because considering the case was about a child being killed which effects the whole of the public as one it was a murder but two it was of a child which puts other children at risk considering it could have been a serial child killer involved. The identity’s was also revealed as Venables and Thompson was criminals which means there privacy should be invaded as the crime they committed was so strong and shocking that they lost all rights to privacy protection after they committed the crime.
Strict liability is a standard for liability, which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by her or his acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of men’s rea). Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporation’s law, and criminal law. In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortuous intent. The claimant need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible. The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous. It discourages reckless behaviour and needless loss by forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution. It also has the effect of simplifying and thereby expediting court decisions in these cases.
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation centre. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defence of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defence may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs. If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.
An example of Contempt of Court is the Robert Murat case. Four national newspaper groups have today apologized for publishing false allegations about Robert Murat and two other people over claims they were involved in the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and agreed to pay £600,000 in libel damages. In a statement read out in the high court, News International, Mirror Group Newspapers, Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers apologized to Murat, an official suspect in the McCann case, and two others, and acknowledged making "false claims" about them. Eleven daily and Sunday titles published by the four groups are expected to run apologies to Murat. In total, it is understood that the four newspaper groups will pay out at least £800,000 in damages: £600,000 to Murat and six-figure sums to the two other claimants. The apologies and damages were claimed from Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated's Daily Mail, London Evening Standard and Metro; MGN's Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and Daily Record; and News International's Sun and News of the World. The court heard that the papers have in excess of 15 million readers and that between them almost 100 articles were written mentioning either Murat or the two other claimants, Sergey Malinka and Mikala Walczuch. I think the outcome was right as the newspapers published false allegations regarding innocent people which can damage their reputations which is why they should have been punished for their actions. The outcome I feel was reasonable and justified as the newspapers who published the stories at the time made a lot of money out of it which is why it was only right to reward the victims with a money based reward.
Social media has a huge impact on law in journalism as the ever changing development of technology has caused the rise of citizen journalists. Citizen journalists is based upon public citizens playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information. Social media site Twitter has specifically caused an impact on the legal side of journalism. The overwhelming public in the Stephen Lawrence murder trial which involved social media reporting. The trial opened with an application by the prosecution to ban the use of social media out of fear of prejudicial commentary. The following morning, after a BBC challenge, the judge accepted that Twitter was not a means for journalists to comment but a means to report court cases as they happen, informing both the public and their colleagues in the newsroom. When it came to the verdicts and sentencing of Stephen Lawrence’s murderers, the interest on Twitter was phenomenal. During the sentencing, all who were reporting the trial saw new followers flocking to find out more. Each of the feeds also played a wider role, with live broadcasters relaying the tweets to TV and radio audiences - and websites such as the BBC and the Guardian integrating tweets into live pages.
R v Paul Chambers appealed to the High Court as Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions or better known as the Twitter Joke Trial, was a United Kingdom legal case centred on the conviction of a man under the Communications Act 2003 for sending a "menacing" message via Twitter. The conviction was widely condemned as a miscarriage of justice and was appealed three times, succeeding on the third attempt. This trial is an example of how social media has had such a big impact on law in journalism. The case started during late December 2009 and early January 2010 as the cold weather caused many airplane flights to be cancelled, due to this 28 year old Paul Chambers tweeted ‘Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!’. The airport management considered the message to be "not credible" as a threat but contacted the police anyway. Paul Chambers further was arrested by anti-terror police at his office, his house was searched and his mobile phone, laptop and desktop hard drive were confiscated. He was later charged with "sending a public electronic message that was grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character contrary to the Communications Act 2003". On 10 May, he was found guilty at Doncaster magistrates court, fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs, further more he lost his job as a consequence.
Bibliography
•
7 laws journalists now need to know - from database rights to hate speech
•
URL: http://onlinejournalismblog.com/2012/11/22/7-laws-journalists-now-need-to-know-from-database-rights-to-hate-speech/
•
Page Title: 7 laws journalists now need to know - from database rights to hate speech
•
Website Title: Online Journalism Blog
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2012
•
Author: Paul Bradshaw
•
BBC Academy - Journalism – Defamation
•
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/journalism/article/art20130702112133651
•
Page Title: BBC Academy - Journalism – Defamation
•
Website Title: Bbc.co.uk
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2012
•
Author:
•
The Frankie Boyle libel case – an example of how race has replaced sex as the No1 taboo – Telegraph Blogs
•
URL: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100186104/the-frankie-boyle-libel-case-an-example-of-how-race-has-replaced-sex-as-the-no1-taboo/
•
Page Title: The Frankie Boyle libel case – an example of how race has replaced sex as the No1 taboo – Telegraph Blogs
•
Website Title: Telegraph Blogs
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2013
•
Author: Ed West
•
Twitter users: A guide to the law
•
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257
•
Page Title: Twitter users: A guide to the law
•
Website Title: BBC News
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2013
•
Author:
•
Contempt of Court - Law Commission
•
URL: http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/contempt.htm
•
Page Title: Contempt of Court - Law Commission
•
Website Title: Lawcommission.justice.gov.uk
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2015
•
Author:
•
Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?
•
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/81cc6ff0-6df2-35e9-a88c-dfe2dc8b31b
•
Page Title: Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?
•
Website Title: College of Journalism
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2013
•
Author:
•
Twitter Joke Trial
•
URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Joke_Trial
•
Page Title: Twitter Joke Trial
•
Website Title: Wikipedia
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2015
•
Author:
•
Former Madeleine suspect Robert Murat arrives for questioning
•
URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2871343/Former-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Robert-Murat-arrives-Algarve-police-station-questioning-Met-detectives.html
•
Page Title: Former Madeleine suspect Robert Murat arrives for questioning
•
Website Title: Daily Mail Online
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2014
•
Author:
•
Reporting Restrictions
•
URL: http://www.societyofeditors.co.uk/userfiles/file/ReportingRestrictions
•
Page Title: Reporting Restictions
•
Website Title: Society of Editors
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2014
•
Author:
•
Contempt of Court Act 1981
•
URL: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/crossheading/strict-liability
•
Page Title: Contempt of Court Act 1981
•
Website Title: Legislation.gov.uk
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2014
•
Author:
•
Jon Venables case: the legal arguments
•
URL: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jul/23/jon-venables-case-legal-arguments
•
Page Title: Jon Venables case: the legal arguments
•
Website Title: the Guardian
•
Access Date: 03/02/15
•
Year Published: 2010
•
Author: Natalie Hanman
