Comments on: 10 pt test for bloggers on defamation http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/ If there wasn't one before, it's time we started it... Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:50:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Barttholomew http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/#comment-11351 Barttholomew Tue, 27 May 2008 16:31:41 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/#comment-11351 Reynolds is less dodgy than it was, thanks to a recent case concerning Searchlight and (who else?) the BNP: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jun/05/mondaymediasection13 Reynolds is less dodgy than it was, thanks to a recent case concerning Searchlight and (who else?) the BNP:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jun/05/mondaymediasection13

]]> By: Adam Bienkov http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/#comment-11341 Adam Bienkov Tue, 27 May 2008 14:01:47 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/#comment-11341 The Reynolds defense is a notoriously flimsy one to take and should only be used if all others fail. Some guidance cut and pasted from my old revision notes: A defamatory statement is one that either: Exposes the claimant to hatred ridicule or contempt, Causes them to be shunned or avoided, Lowers them in the eyes of right-thinking members of society; or Disparages them in their office, trade or profession. Burden of Proof: Claimant must prove 3 things: 1. Words are defamatory: A right thinking member of society, using their intelligence and judgement, would consider that the words read in their natural and ordinary meaning, or by inference or innuendo, would consider them to be defamatory of the claimant. 2. Identification: A reasonable reader generally, or a reader with specialist knowledge would understand the words to refer to the claimant. There is no safety in not naming someone (Morgan v Oldhams Press) Or half heartedly naming someone. It is also possible to libel a group, providing the group is not too big and has a group identity (Banbury CID v News of the World) 3. Publication: Words must be published to a third person. Every fresh publication is a fresh libel. Best Defences in order of strength Justification, Fair Comment, Absolute Privilege, Qualified Privilege. Justification: an absolute defence. True and applies to statements of facts. Must be able to prove truth in substance and in fact, in their natural and ordinary meaning, and of any inference and innuendo. Innuendo: hidden meaning for people with specialist knowledge. Inference: suggested but not said. The best defence to take is justification (i.e it is provably true) Unless you can be sure of that, you are on dodgy ground. If you are forced to use the Reynolds defense then you are on very dodgy ground. The Reynolds defense is a notoriously flimsy one to take and should only be used if all others fail.

Some guidance cut and pasted from my old revision notes:

A defamatory statement is one that either:

Exposes the claimant to hatred ridicule or contempt,
Causes them to be shunned or avoided,
Lowers them in the eyes of right-thinking members of society; or
Disparages them in their office, trade or profession.

Burden of Proof:

Claimant must prove 3 things:

1. Words are defamatory: A right thinking member of society, using their intelligence and judgement, would consider that the words read in their natural and ordinary meaning, or by inference or innuendo, would consider them to be defamatory of the claimant.
2. Identification: A reasonable reader generally, or a reader with specialist knowledge would understand the words to refer to the claimant. There is no safety in not naming someone (Morgan v Oldhams Press) Or half heartedly naming someone. It is also possible to libel a group, providing the group is not too big and has a group identity (Banbury CID v News of the World)
3. Publication: Words must be published to a third person. Every fresh publication is a fresh libel.

Best Defences in order of strength

Justification,
Fair Comment,
Absolute Privilege,
Qualified Privilege.

Justification: an absolute defence.

True and applies to statements of facts.
Must be able to prove truth in substance and in fact, in their natural and ordinary meaning, and of any inference and innuendo.

Innuendo: hidden meaning for people with specialist knowledge.
Inference: suggested but not said.

The best defence to take is justification (i.e it is provably true)

Unless you can be sure of that, you are on dodgy ground. If you are forced to use the Reynolds defense then you are on very dodgy ground.

]]> By: Tony Kennick http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/#comment-11297 Tony Kennick Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:41 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/05/26/10-pt-test-for-bloggers-on-defamation/#comment-11297 It is nice to see something to help bloggers in this matter. A lot of them do their best to adhere to "Responsible Journalism standards" whether or not they think they will ever have to mount a Reynolds defence. But it is quite difficult without access to what that sort of thing is. I doubt many bloggers have the spare income to join the NuJ. It is nice to see something to help bloggers in this matter. A lot of them do their best to adhere to “Responsible Journalism standards” whether or not they think they will ever have to mount a Reynolds defence. But it is quite difficult without access to what that sort of thing is. I doubt many bloggers have the spare income to join the NuJ.

]]>