It's the civil aspect of libel that is most likely to affect the modern media. This is the non-criminal circumstance that arises when an individual feels he or she has been damaged by published information or comment, and seeks relief ($) from the courts.
If material is accurate and fair and prepared with normal professional care, the chances of being landed with a libel suit will be minimal, especially if the media person exercises some common sense and issues an immediate retraction, correct errors and apologize for the mistake if a statement that could be construed as defamatory is made.
1. Defamation is the umbrella term for libel and slander. Libel involves publication of defamatory matter in permanent form; slander involves publication of defamatory matter in transitory form. Thus, spoken defamation, uttered over the back fence, constitutes slander, while broadcast defamation constitutes libel (more serious than slander).
2. Libel is the false broadcast or publication communicated through words, pictures, sounds or gestures that harms a person's reputation by exposure to hate, ridicule or contempt in the minds of the average member of the community. Forms of harm include: damage to personal reputation, social contacts, and occupation. Ridicule and contempt are forms of damage. Some words used in a description can be libelous such as crook, slut, murderer etc.
False names are not necessarily protection if the circumstances are well known. A person's name does not have to be broadcast to be identified. Pictures, voice impersonations, physical descriptions, actions mimicked or described, specific job descriptions, addresses given, circumstances described, innuendo, omissions, extrinsic facts, can lead to identification.
Watch Those Guests and Callers
In law, liability for defamation doesn't depend on whether a media outlet shares or agrees with the opinion of guests or callers, it depends on whether it "publishes" the opinion-and "publishes" in this context means broadcasts or conveys to the public. Causing the opinion to be broadcast on the airwaves will be publication, so if it is defamatory, the media outlet, not the guest or caller, is exposed to liability regardless of whether it agrees with the opinion, and regardless of whether it has issued disclaimers.
Legal Defenses in a Libel Action
In all jurisdictions, the media person who has been hauled into court as defendant in a libel action has three basic courses of defense. However, if malice is proved it could defeat most defenses. Malice is intentional ill will in libel. It could involve a reckless disregard of the facts.
1. The Truth
Such a defense seems simple enough, but "the burden of proof rests upon the defendant." If proven, truth is an absolute defense that cannot be defeated by malice.
2. Fair Comment
Statements of opinion made upon matters of public interest fall under the protection of this defense (fair comment) if they are made in good faith and without malice. It must be a comment, it must be fair, it must be based on facts, it must be of public interest, there must be no malice.
3. Absolute and Qualified Privilege
There are some specific situations in which journalists enjoy the indirect benefit of complete protection, absolute privilege, regardless of the fundamentally libelous nature of works reported. There are other situations where journalists may benefit from a similar, but more limited protection, usually described in the law as qualified privilege. Qualified privilege can be defeated by malice!
Absolute Privilege: applies only to media coverage of court proceedings. Must be fair and accurate, without comment. Must be broadcast contemporaneously with the proceedings. Must provide a reasonable statement of explanation or contradiction on behalf of the plaintiff.
Qualified Privilege: a fair and accurate report of a legislative body (parliament), public administrative body (CRTC), a commission of inquiry constituted by a public authority, a meeting of any public authority in Canada (PUC), a meeting to discuss any matter of public concern whether admission is general or restricted, a notice given for public information by any aforementioned public authority, also art, science, religion, learning, trade, business, industry, professional, game sport or pastime organization.
Tags
Canada
blogs
Werner Patels
Alberta Avenue
Alberta
Politics
May 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I have been saying it now for months on end: of all the leaders in Ottawa, Layton is the most reasonable, most common-sensical and most honorable leader out there, which is why he and the NDP deserve my vote next time — I won’t kid myself and predict an NDP government, but it would be nice if the NDP could become the official opposition and move up to second place in the HoC.