I'm glad I posted Article 10 of the ECHR - this is, for Who, the rule by which we in Europe are now guided, Internet or not. In fact as the UK was the first signatory to the ECHR, we have been technically covered by it for the best part of 50 years.
All free speech in the high contracting states (as they are known) is limited by that article.
Today I popped into the 'Bod' in Oxford and found something a little more up to date than a previous poster's Smith & Hogan. I read a large part of a 1997 book entitled 'Defamation' - guess what, criminal libel dates back to 1275 and the other book is just as good. A criminal libel has to be so severe that a judge would accept that the case should be dealt with as a crime rather than as a tort. There are precious few cases since if a prosecution were to succeed the defendant would be punished and the complainant wouldn't get a penny. Far better to sue for libel, slander or malicious falsehood and pocket a packet.
Talking of which - C4 (Dispatches prog) were skinned to the tune of £250 000 or so by the Roddicks of Body Shop fame. On top of that they picked up costs!!! They're not always right.
Now, IMHO, they may have libelled the BA crews since, if the words were calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business then an action may lie (this is the basis for slander per se in the 1952 Act, but if damage was done then I see no reason why the same standard cannot apply in libel). The normal defences apply, but what of the suggestion that the 'captain slept all the way home'. This could lead to loss of his professional status, his pilot qualification etc. Unless the C4 team can demonstrably prove that this was the case - ie that they were reliably informed by someone else or that they were able to gain access to the cockpit and witness the journey home they may be on dodgy ground. What if the rest of the crew swore on oath that he was awake and contributing to the crew? Just a thought.
The full list of defences is as follows:
1. Justification - The defamatory statement is true or substantially true.
2. Fair comment - The defamatory statement is an opinion, based on true facts, which an honest person could hold in relation to a matter of public interest.
3. Absolute privilege - The nature and circumstances of the publication give rise to an absolute defence (eg Parliamentary privilege dating from the 1688 Bill of Rights)
4. Qualified privilege - The nature and circumstances of the publication give rise to a defence unless the plaintiff proves malice (eg The other day, in our District Council, I robustly defended the interests of my constituents and said something that an opposition councillor felt was slanderous. I was protected by qualified privilege - Horrocks v Howes 1975 AC.)
5. Secondary responsibility - The defendant had an innocent and secondary role in the publication of the defamatory statement (paperboys, postmen, print workers, IT maintenance engineers working for an ISP etc).
6. Offer of amends - An offer to apologise and pay damages volunteered by an innocent defendant which is not accepted by the plaintiff (Rule 1 - if you've made a mistake say sorry and send her flowers!).
7. Limitation - The plaintiff's action has been brought too late (the 1996 Act sets a time limit of one year from the discovery of the actionable statement - not 6 years as it used to be).
8. Consent to publication - The plaintiff expressly or impliedly agreed to the publication taking place (don't sign anything!!)
9. Accord and satisfaction - The plaintiff has expressly or impliedly agreed not to pursue an action against the defendant.
Extracts from Defamation (1997)
This lot expands into half a book once the lawyers get going.
Hope this is of interest.