Exam (elaborations)
Media Law Revision Notes - Distinction
- Course
- Institution
I achieved a distinction with these revision notes for Media Law at a Russell Group University.
[Show more]
6 reviews
By: nataliacabezuelomartos • 4 year ago
By: elenifotopoulou3010 • 5 year ago
By: benbeattie12 • 6 year ago
so helpful!!!!
By: spyrosspyrakos0 • 6 year ago
By: nainadevi • 6 year ago
By: hannahdunn • 6 year ago
Seller
Follow
lawnotesxo2
Reviews received
Content preview
LIBEL Defamation: Protects reputationLibel: Defamation in permanent form • S1(2): Businesses must prove “serious financial loss”
o B/c legal person doesn’t have feelings to be damages
S9: Libel tourism
• UK law favours claimants ∴ sues in UK, despite not living here
o HERZFELD: Should only sue for attacks on business reputation > other rep., e.g. donate ££ to charity Berezovsky
• Art 8 (right to private life) + protecting reputation vs. Art 10 (freedom of expression) Spamhaus - Publications in US/Russia/UK
• HOOPER: DA 2013 favours D, e.g. serious harm / single PR / ↓ libel tourism assists defending libel actions - Bulk email marketing service in California - Court: Must have legitimate reputation to protect in UK to sue
- S’s website claimed claimant = “top 10 worst world spammers”
• S11 Defamation Act 2013: Removed presumption in favour of jury trial • Internet issue: If upload in 1 jurisdiction = available to all jurisdictions
- WARBY J: Globalisation w/ easy communication ∴ creating bad reputation in UK = significant
• 2 types: Dow Jones
- Deterred people from associating w/ business ∴ serious harm
o Libel: Permanent form ≠ required to suffer loss b/c publication - Uploaded in US, downloaded in Australia
o Slander: Spoken = requires “special damage” (economic loss) Jameel - Court: Defamation occurred in Australia where its downloaded in intelligible form > uploaded
§ No need to prove if accused of crime/unfit for job - Lord BINGHAM: If not prompt + issuing proceedings is public = ↓ chance of financial loss Don King
1) DEFAMATORY STATEMENT 2) MUST REFER TO CLAIMANT incl. nicknames - Narrowed Dow Jones: Requires sufficient connection w/ jurisdiction ∴ hard for foreigners to sue in UK
Natural + ordinary meaning • Strict liability: Intention ≠ relevant Jameel
• 1. Natural + ordinary meaning Hulton - 5 downloads, incl. J + lawyers ∴ only suing for 2
Sims - Story on fictional X = went to France w/ women who wasn’t his wife - Court: Disproportionate abuse of process, b/c costs outweigh benefits of bringing action = struck out
- Test: “If statement ↓ claimant’s reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people” ∴ insult ≠ defamatory - Court: Reasonable people would think defamatory words referred to barrister w/ same name
• S9: If ≠ domiciled in UK/EU MS, court considers if UK = MOST APPROPRIATE place to bring action for that
Berkoff • Identifies specific group statement
- Journalist referred to actor as ‘hideously ugly’ = defamatory, b/c B’s profession Knupffer o E.g. Extent of damage to claimant’s reputation in UK vs. elsewhere
- Physical appearance = important for actors ∴ ↓ claimant’s reputation - Article claimed Russian political party = pro-Hitler, but claimant = leader of British branch o Prevents courts readily accepting jurisdiction, just b/c claimant frames claim to focus on damage in UK
- Lord MILLETT dissented: If readers understood it as a joke ≠ defamatory - Court: Group too big to identify him, b/c article ≠ name him / British branch
Overlap w/ defamation + privacy
• 2. Statement in its context • Unintentional identification • SMARTT: Celebrities prefer privacy injunctions, b/c prevents damaging articles being published > libel
Charleston Newstead claims after publication
- Actors complained article photos edited their faces onto porn models w/ headline “Porn Shocker” - Published that N convicted of bigamy, but another man w/ same name in Camberwell o But Giggs/John Terry super-injunctions show hard to keep their anonymity out of the media spotlight
- But stated photos were edited - Reasonable person would think statement referred to N • WACKS: Blurred line w/ privacy + defamation, b/c truth defence protects media’s freedom of expression
- Court: Article must be read as a whole > words in isolation
O’Shea DEFENCES
o Bane + antidote - Sued sex phone line advert that featured a lookalike to K, b/c damages reputation as actress • S10: If can’t sue author/editor/publisher, may sue secondary publishers
§ ∴ Media can’t just focus on wording, but layout + placement of photos etc. - Court: Strict liability rule ≠ cover lookalike situations, otherwise unjustifiable Art 10 breach S2: TRUTH
Norman
• Replaced “justification” common law defence
- Magazine joke that N trapped in doors + replied “honey, I ain’t got no sideways” • Identifies by association
Liberace à Importance of truth
- Argued magazine suggested she spoke in undignified way that was a racist + degrading stereotype Cassidy
- Accused of being a ‘fruit-flavoured’ gay, which he denied = £8k damages
- Court: Article read as a whole complimented N ≠ defamatory - Mrs. C identified in association w/ Mr. C, b/c she represented herself as his wife
• Statement must be substantially true to the hypothetical, ordinary reader
Cruise 3) PUBLICATION *If nobody sees ≠ damage reputation Chase
- Articles on 1) Idolising Nicole Kidman + Tom Cruise’s marriage; 2) Gossip column suggested they • Reasonably foreseeable publication - Prove “sting” of libel = substantially true, not every word is true
were going to divorce o Intentional publication
- Newspaper argued 1st article balanced out the 2 nd Pullman Rothschild
- Court: 2 separate + distinct articles - Open postcard w/ defamatory statement ∴ likely to be read by someone else = publication - DM claimed R flew EU Trade Commissioner to dinner in Moscow ∴ corrupt
- Truth defence applied, b/c sting = substantially true
• 3. If not taken seriously ≠ actionable, esp. advertising/fictional stories/non-news reports o Unintentional publication - Relationship w/ Russian companies = conflict of interest
Vodafone v Orange Slipper v BBC
- Ordinary reader accustomed to advertisers using hyperbole that ≠ intended to be taken seriously - BBC suggested incompetent detective = repeated in TV review columns • Defeated by malice: S8 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 - If motive of publishing details of spent
- Court: BBC liable for subsequent publications, b/c reasonably foreseeable it’d be repeated conviction = malice, truth defence ≠ apply
Innuendo
Websites S3: HONEST OPINION = for fair + honest critics
• Innuendo: Words appear innocent, but defamatory to those w/ certain info to understand the double meaning
• Replaced “fair comment” common law defence + removed requirement for opinion to be in public interest
Cassidy • Separate articles in 1 website
Buddhist Society à Australia • HOOPER: Significant defence, b/c covers any honest statement of opinion, even if bigoted
- Photo captioned: “Mr C + another woman announce engagement” ∴ implies Mrs. C = mistress
- Court: Defamatory, b/c anyone who knew Mrs. C knew she represented herself as his wife - Q) Does other publication have “SUBSTANTIVE IDENTITY” or link? If latter ≠ separate publication • 1) Statement of opinion > fact
- E.g. Homepage’s HTML linked headlines + full story = sufficiently linked to form 1 publication ∴ o Based on how an ordinary person would understand it + infers fact as a form of opinion
McAlpine à Twitter whoever views homepage = saw the defamation > buried in archives Cook
- After BBC show on politician abusing boys, B tweeted M’s name w/ *innocent face* = defamatory - “Low value for money” MP = statement of comment > fact
- Court: Those likely to read it would have fair grasp of politics ∴ likely to be read in its context Cruise
- Articles on 2 diff pages = 2 separate + distinct articles • 2) Indicates basis of opinion
Juxtaposition Joseph
• Despite innocent statement, pictures go against the wording Multiple publication rule - UKSC: Comment must explicitly/implicitly indicate facts it’s based on
Petters • Before, every new publication of defamation = separate action w/ new limitation period
- BBC reported quiz irregularities w/ footage of P participating in a quiz show = defamatory Duke of Brunswick • 3) Honest person could have held such an opinion, based on [any] facts that existed when statement published
- Court: Juxtaposition of pictures, b/c viewers would think he was involved in the scam - Despite limitation period ended, obtaining fresh copy = separate action w/ new limitation period o Objective test
Burstein
Changing social attitudes • Archives - Newspaper claimed MP defended old expense scandal system
• Whether a statement is viewed defamatory = changes over time o Each web view = new publication - Despite wrong fact, MP exploited old system ∴ wrong for MP to defend old system = honest comment
Liberace Loutchansky
- The Times accused L of being boss of major criminal organisations = in online archives • Defeated by malice: If claimant proves D ≠ hold the opinion
- Accused of being a ‘fruit-flavoured’ gay when homosexuality = illegal in UK
- Court upheld Brunswick rule for archived online material o E.g. Reproduces comments of 3rd party interviewee
Donovan - But defence argued Art 10 breach, esp. if kept archives S4: PUBLIC INTEREST *Defences rely ↑ on responsible journalism > proving the statement
- Sued magazine that said he lied about being gay = viewed as homophobic § SUTTER: Limitation period = pointless, b/c open-ended liability, despite when it was first published • 1) Statement must be a matter of public interest
§ ∴ Multiple PR discourages publishers from making info readily available on archives • 2) D reasonably believed it was in public interest
SERIOUS HARM
• S1: REQUIREMENT OF SERIOUS HARM S8: Single publication rule Flood
o Claimant must prove publication “caused / likely to cause serious harm to reputation” > actual harm - Article implied policeman took bribes + newspaper argued it’s in public interest
• S8: Single publication rule
Cooke - UKSC: Yes, police corruption = serious public concern
o After 1 year of original publication, claimant can’t bring action against same material by same publisher
- Benefits street “overcharged rent” ≠ defamatory o Unless MATERIALLY DIFFERENT manner of publication § Victory for investigative journalism ∴ ↑ freedom of expression
- Court: Swift apology to neutralise effect ≠ likely to cause serious harm to reputations in future § Depends on importance given to statement + extent of subsequent publication • Replaced “Reynolds” common law defence
- BEAN J: If accused of paedophile/terrorist = legally + culturally causes serious harm o May refer to old cases ∴ puts Reynolds on statutory footing > new defence
• + ↑ Freedom of expression, except for those who re-publish substantially the same material
Lachaux (2015) Reynolds à Persuasive
• + ↑ Right to reputation, b/c court’s discretion to extend 1 year period
- Reynolds QP defence of responsible journalism on matters of public interest
- WARBY J: Courts may consider what happened after publication • - SCOTT disagrees: Fails to balance freedom of expression + right to reputation
- Lord NICHOLLS: Although media get things wrong, non-exhaustive factors –
o After limitation period ends, not all publishers deserve to be absolved from liability
1) Seriousness of allegation: ↑ serious = ↑ misinformed = ↑ harm to reputation
o Some publications = “horrendously damaging” to X’s reputation, regardless of how long ago it was
2) Type of information: Matter of public concern?
published
3) Source: Paid? Revenge?
• - HOOPER: Is repeating broadcast/transferring paper-based publication onto Internet = materially different? 4) Attempts to verify information?
o ∴ Lack of clarity undermines usefulness of single PR 5) Status of info: If allegation being investigated = should respect that
6) Urgency
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lawnotesxo2. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $13.54. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
53068 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now