English Law of Libel

Question: Write an essay on English Law of Libel? Answer: All this while, efforts have been made by both the government and the Assembly to stable the English law of libel. The law was not accessible to all the people because of its difficult and expensive structure and hence it was not reachable to the public. This resulted in oppression of system done by rich and wealthy people. The Defamation Act received consent in April 2013. The purpose of the Act is to streamline and rebalance the law. It defines resistances to a libel claim, announces fresh techniques, bequests new control to the court and restricts libel tourism. The main purpose is to decrease the ease in the freedom of speech so that all the writers, publishers, journalists and editors get involved and engage themselves in less self-censorship and are competent to fight legal pressures. They shall be given more protection when the case comes to a trial. This shall give more space and freedom of expression in our country (Sense about Science, 2014). This act has a lot of role in the field of journalism. In journalism to know the truth or go behind facts there are many areas which are explored and crossed by the journalist. For such acts, history proves where action has been taken against many journalists for their wrong. Like in the case of Frankie Boyle the High Court jury awarded him a penalty of 54,650 pounds as the Daily Mirror had defamed him by labeling him as racist. Since then it looks like that London has a new name of libel capital of the world. UK is looked as a suitor welcoming country. Hence the Defamation Act 2013 is looked as a winning strategy over the libel reform. This act came into existence after many factors were raised near the government of bringing about changes in the libel resistances for print media, issuers and internet service suppliers; guidelines concerning recurrence of libel matter by using internet re-publishing, and deterrence of libel tourism (Britt Lucy, 2013). The Defamation Act 2013 shall contain the following changes: 1. There shall be new threshold for defining the serious harms done so that people should know as to when they can bring claims so that the useful time of the court is not wasted.2. Safeguard to the scientists and academics printing peer-reviewed factual in technical and educational bulletins3. Safeguard to such printing substance where there is involvement of public interest and where there are justified reasons to believe so. 4. Libel tourism also focused on constricting the assessment for assertions comprising persons with slight association to England and Wales being brought before the courts.5. Bringing a new procedure where the motive is to aid the prospective sufferers of defamation online, by determining the argument openly with the individual who has displayed the declaration.6. Single-publication rule to stop recurrent assertions in contradiction of an issuer about the identical material (BBC News, 2013). The case of McDonalds looked like they had made an error in litigating two unemployed activists, Dave Morris and Helen Steel, who were not among the others and were ready to fight a case against McDonalds. This was the first time that McDonalds went to a UK court after such assertions. In past it has been witnessed that McDonalds had enforced admission of guilt from many media channels comprising Britains BBC and chief papers such as the Guardian, Channel 4 for broadcasting a Germany documentary Jungle burger in 1990 and theNightline programme in New Zealand. McDonalds has also propelled solicitors letters to the Vegetarian Society of the UK about their publicationGreen scene, the publishers of a Polish primary schoolhandbook and to publishers of a UK Home Ecologyhandbook. It was proclaimed that there was a sense of fear in the environment where it was believed that if anything wrong is published or said about McDonalds then the person shall have to face a writ. Morris and Steel were dispensing leaflets titled Whats Wrong with McDonalds. The leaflet claimed that McDonalds was selling harmful food to people, oppressed its labors, encouraged rainforest devastation through livestock ranching, and promoted children in their promotions. Both of them were sued by McDonaldss in 1990. The name of the case was McDonald's Restaurants v Morris Steel. Due to lack of legal aid both Morris and Steel came as lawyers against McDonalds and this case went on for years in the judiciary. McDonalds asserted that they were fighting for the prevalence of truth. The British Libel laws is in favor of those who bring suit. It was the duty of Morris and Steel to prove that all the statements declared by them on the leaflets were true. McDonalds did not have to prove anything. Keil Starmer stated that the issue in the law is that the problem is not in proving the true facts as asserted but the problem is that the ones who are rich and wealthy has all the resources to get a good legal team with a big risk that in case the assertions are proved false then huge amount will have to be paid by the one who is not wealthy and loses the case. With this fear people do not fight against such big and wealthy companies. Morris and Steel were sustained by a global Mc Libel Support Campaign which collected money to aid with expenses. Both got 100 witnesses which had evidence to support the wrong doings of McDonalds products and practices. They also sued McDonalds as a SLAPP-back for dispensing leaflets proclaiming them as falsifiers. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights administrated that Steel and Morris's have the right to a just trial as they were not given legal help and their freedom of expression has been dishonored. The UK government was given command to compensate 20,000 to Steel and 15,000 to Morris for charges and expenses (Beder S., 2009). The understandings of Justice Bell made the work of defendant even more cumbersome. There were questions as few assertions which were false did make any harm to the image of McDonalds more than the statements which were true caused more harm to the people. It has been stated that defamation law has wrongly affected the freedom of speech and free flow of information. Ample amount of money is required for making a defamatory action. The support of government and legal aid is very essential in such scenario (Nicholson M.). Libel action constitute of eight main actions: 1. Truth If it is proved that all the assertions made by you are true then cause of action taken by the plaintiff shall fail.2. Contextual TruthThe defense in contextual truth shall prevail if it is proved that the matter stated consists of one or more such points which are majorly true and the other libel accusations do not add to the damage of the status of the plaintiff.3. Defense for publication of public documents- This defense narrates to reasonable summary or excerpt of legislative material, court papers and council and other public-authority registers that are accessible for examination to the public. This defense shall not be granted I the plaintiff proves that the libel content was not printed fairly for the info of the community or the progression of learning.4. Defense of fair reporting of proceedings of public concern This defense shall include statement of global courts, global seminars, scholarly people, sports or leisure or vocation connotations, AGMs of public compan ies or any public meeting that has been brought forward to talk about matters in the interest of public. This defense shall not be granted I the plaintiff proves that the libel content was not printed fairly for the info of the community or the progression of learning.5. Defense of qualified privilegeIt is a defense to the publication of offensive data if the defense delivers that:The receiver has concern in having data on the topic,The material is printed to the recipient in the progression of delivering to the recipient data on that subjectThe behavior of the defense in printing that material is rational in the situations.The Defamation Act gives an elaborated outline for the court to resolve whether a publication was rational and justified in the situation. 6. Defense of Honest Opinion To gain this defense it is required to prove that:The material was an expression of outlook rather than a declaration of statement;The outlook linked to a material of public interestThe outlook is grounded on appropriate materialThe defendant shall lose if it proved that at the time of publication the outlook of defendant was dishonest. 7. Defenses of innocent disseminationIt is a defense to the publication of offensive material if the defendant printed the insulting material purely in the capability of a inferior supplier. 8. Triviality Section 33 of the Defamation Act grasps that no act for defamation subsists if you demonstrate that the situations of periodical were such that the plaintiff was doubtful to withstand damage (Ghattaura R., 2013). The Defamation Act 2013 brings about new serious harm thresholds which are formulated to aid public to comprehend when they can come forward to bring claims so that the courts time is not wasted at all. The Ministers assert that the new Act would certainly bring about a reverse chilling effect for the prior defamatory laws on freedom of expression and genuine discussion. The justice minister also said that time and again it has been observed that media houses, researchers and scholars have been confronted with unjustified lawful pressures for honestly condemning a corporation, individual or product. With the introduction of this new law any person who is articulating opinions and involved in public discussion can conduct in a way that the law information may provide with by giving them tougher defense against unfair and prejudiced pressures of lawful act. This act has brought about an end to the long fight for a just strike of balance between the right to freedom of expression and people's capability to defend their repute. The Defamation Act covers a chain of methods, comprising defense for experts and researchers printing peer-reviewed content in technical and educational periodicals, and for those printing matter that they rationally consider is in the public interest. This new procedure has been made with an objective to assist the possible sufferers of defamation online by determining the argument directly with the individual who has displayed the declaration (Press Association, 2013). Therefore, the defamation Act 2013 has brought about a positive change in the interest of the public as well as giving importance to the freedom of expression of the public without wasting the time of courts. Another changes which can be added to the Act are that the Act can provide with an improved defense for the operatives of websites hosting user-generated content. In other laws a single-publication rule is formulated to avoid same assertions made against a publisher about the same material. These factors shall also help in reducing the defamatory claims where the test for proving the assertions made shall be reduced (Press Association, 2013). References: Sense about Science, (2014), The Libel Reform Campaign The Defamation Act 2013: What does it mean for you?, Available From website: https://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Libel/LRC_2014_What_does_the_law_mean_for_you.pdfBritt Lucy, (2013), Changes to the Defamation Act increased protection for the media?, Available From website: https://thejusticegap.com/2013/10/changes-defamation-act-increased-protection-media/BBC News, (2013), Defamation Act 2013 aims to improve libel laws, Available From website: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25551640Beder S., (2009), McLibel SLAPP Case, Available From website: https://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/environment/SLAPPs/McLibel.htmlNicholson M., McLibel: A case study in English defamation law, Available From website: https://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/wisclaww.pdfGhattaura R., (2013), To sue or not to sue- defamation and libel: media law and ethics with Ian Anderson, Available From website: https://www.journalism-now.co.uk /sue-sue-defamation-libel-media-law-ethics-ian-anderson-week-3/Press Association, (2013), Libel: new Defamation Act will reverse 'chilling effect', ministers claim, Available From website: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/31/trivial-libel-claims-targeted-new-law