Definition of Libel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Definition of Libel
I'm not an expert but I believe that some of the definitions of libel that have been given in some recent threads aren't quite accurate. I'm pretty sure that published material is libelous only if...
1) The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly, i.e. it damages someones reputation (causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, or lowered in the estimation of the community).
2) The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons.
3) The material is distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published.
4) The statement is false. In most juristictions, truth is an absolute defence against a libel action (I think Quebec might be an exception to this).
Libel can occur without intent and malice. However, intentional publication of defamatory material that is known to be false is typically dealt with more severely that inadvertant libel.
[This message has been edited by stagger (edited 07 October 2000).]
1) The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly, i.e. it damages someones reputation (causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, or lowered in the estimation of the community).
2) The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons.
3) The material is distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published.
4) The statement is false. In most juristictions, truth is an absolute defence against a libel action (I think Quebec might be an exception to this).
Libel can occur without intent and malice. However, intentional publication of defamatory material that is known to be false is typically dealt with more severely that inadvertant libel.
[This message has been edited by stagger (edited 07 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not quite correct, stagger.
(Oxford Concise Dictionary of Law)
Generally you have to prove special damage in a slander case - there are, however exeptions. One of these is when it is calculated to disparage a person in his office, business, trade or profession. Hence, if I were (untruthfully) to tell someone to whom you had applied for a flying job that you didn't know one end of an aircraft from another and you were, basically a cr@p pilot and they, in consequence, were to withdraw the job offer, that would be an actionable slander.
In tort, slander is not actionable when the damage is simply loss of reputation - there has to be material or financial loss. This is not true of libel.
[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 07 October 2000).]
Libel n.
A defamatory statement made in permanent form, such as writing, pictures or film. Radio and television broadcasts for general release and public performance of plays are treated as being made in permanent form for the purposes of the law of defamation. A libel is actionable in tort without proof that its publication has caused special damage (actual financial or material loss) to the person defamed). Libel can also be a crime (criminal libel). Proof of publication of the statement to third parties is not necessary in criminal libel and truth is a defence only if the statement was published for the public benefit.
A defamatory statement made in permanent form, such as writing, pictures or film. Radio and television broadcasts for general release and public performance of plays are treated as being made in permanent form for the purposes of the law of defamation. A libel is actionable in tort without proof that its publication has caused special damage (actual financial or material loss) to the person defamed). Libel can also be a crime (criminal libel). Proof of publication of the statement to third parties is not necessary in criminal libel and truth is a defence only if the statement was published for the public benefit.
Generally you have to prove special damage in a slander case - there are, however exeptions. One of these is when it is calculated to disparage a person in his office, business, trade or profession. Hence, if I were (untruthfully) to tell someone to whom you had applied for a flying job that you didn't know one end of an aircraft from another and you were, basically a cr@p pilot and they, in consequence, were to withdraw the job offer, that would be an actionable slander.
In tort, slander is not actionable when the damage is simply loss of reputation - there has to be material or financial loss. This is not true of libel.
[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 07 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster,
Thanks for pointing out some of the differences between libel and slander. However, I'm not sure I see how what you've written contradicts anything I wrote in my posting. I didn't suggest that "actual financial or material loss" was necessary for a libel to be actionable. On the contrary, I emphasised the fact that it has everything to do with reputation. Furthermore, I wasn't attempting to deal with criminal libel. Just simple libel under tort law - in which case proof of publication is required and truth would be an absolute defence.
So what exactly did I get wrong?
[This message has been edited by stagger (edited 08 October 2000).]
Thanks for pointing out some of the differences between libel and slander. However, I'm not sure I see how what you've written contradicts anything I wrote in my posting. I didn't suggest that "actual financial or material loss" was necessary for a libel to be actionable. On the contrary, I emphasised the fact that it has everything to do with reputation. Furthermore, I wasn't attempting to deal with criminal libel. Just simple libel under tort law - in which case proof of publication is required and truth would be an absolute defence.
So what exactly did I get wrong?
[This message has been edited by stagger (edited 08 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hello there
As an ex. lawyer, it's easy to differenciate between the two forms of defamation, libel and slander.
Essentially, Libel's something which is perminately recorded, substantially untrue and will affect that persons reputation. Slander, however, is something which isn't perminatent (something spoken in presence of minimum ofthree people), is substantially untrue and will affect that persons reputation.
Hope that helps.
G.
As an ex. lawyer, it's easy to differenciate between the two forms of defamation, libel and slander.
Essentially, Libel's something which is perminately recorded, substantially untrue and will affect that persons reputation. Slander, however, is something which isn't perminatent (something spoken in presence of minimum ofthree people), is substantially untrue and will affect that persons reputation.
Hope that helps.
G.
Guest
Posts: n/a
InFin, sorry, but you're wrong. Libel can be both a tort and a crime. If you have access to a Law library, check Adams (1888) 22 QBD 66 and Holbrook (1878) 4 QBD 42 at 46.
(Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law 5th. Edition)
stagger, the only difference I was trying to point out (adding in the stuff about slander over-complicated my post, sorry!) was that a libel does not need to be published to a third party. I can't currently locate the precedent, but I believe I've seen that intent to publish a libel (having shown it to the plaintiff only) is also considered a libel.
...In tort, the gist of the matter is the loss of the the plaintiff's reputation and this occurs through publication to a third party; but a principle reason why libel is indictable is the danger to the public peace (See Holbrook) and this may obviously be even greater where the publication is to the prosecutor himself than where it is to another...
The truth of the defamatory statement affords a complete defence (justification) in tort but in crime the defendant must prove not only that the statement is true but that it is for the public benefit that it be published. This is the effect of the Libel Act 1843, modifying the common law under which it is probable that truth was not a defence to the indictment.
The truth of the defamatory statement affords a complete defence (justification) in tort but in crime the defendant must prove not only that the statement is true but that it is for the public benefit that it be published. This is the effect of the Libel Act 1843, modifying the common law under which it is probable that truth was not a defence to the indictment.
stagger, the only difference I was trying to point out (adding in the stuff about slander over-complicated my post, sorry!) was that a libel does not need to be published to a third party. I can't currently locate the precedent, but I believe I've seen that intent to publish a libel (having shown it to the plaintiff only) is also considered a libel.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Huggy, in the Criminal Justice Act of 1998 libel is an entirely civil matter. If libel has in it anything of a criminal nature it is dealt with as a criminal matter and in another term, such as conspriracy or other, but never libel in the terms that Guiness explained. It MAY have existed back in the annals of the 17th and 18th centuries, but does not do so now according to my guru s-in-l(DCI) Not in the latest Act.
Interesting though. I shall appear at the library on Tuesday! Haven't been there for years.
Guest
Posts: n/a
InFin, Smith & Hogan (the Criminal Law Bible, and about as weighty as the RSV) 5th. Edition, is dated 1983 - so criminal libel certainly existed then, not merely back in the dim and distant past.
I'd be the first to state that a lot of my information may be out of date, and it's a long time since I wrote an opinion...
If the 1998 Act repealed any of the common law of criminal libel, I shall be the first to buy you a drink @ LGW in December!
I'd be the first to state that a lot of my information may be out of date, and it's a long time since I wrote an opinion...
If the 1998 Act repealed any of the common law of criminal libel, I shall be the first to buy you a drink @ LGW in December!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guinness (my favourite tipple!), I wasn't in practice. I was internal legal advisor (mostly contract and tax law, some employment, some other stuff - like the occasional libel) for an insurance company. Very lucrative, and very, very, very boring. That's why I'm now a pilot!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is becoming quite an interesting little thread!
Hugmonster - so intent to publish is sufficient? I didn't know that.
I would imagine that postings to PPRuNe would be "treated as being made in permanent form for the purposes of the law of defamation" - but what about contributions to a discussion in the chat room?
Hugmonster - so intent to publish is sufficient? I didn't know that.
I would imagine that postings to PPRuNe would be "treated as being made in permanent form for the purposes of the law of defamation" - but what about contributions to a discussion in the chat room?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can't recall the name of the case, and I can't find it in any of the books I have at home, but I recall a case in the 50's where an author was successfully sued for libel on the basis of an unpublished manuscript.
Certainly a PPRuNe posting can be shown to be libel. After all, so is a radio programme. Interesting point about the Chatroom, though. I can see arguments both ways (typical lawyer comment, that!) and, ultimately, it would have to be decided by a court - thus making lawyers more money!
[This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 10 October 2000).]
Certainly a PPRuNe posting can be shown to be libel. After all, so is a radio programme. Interesting point about the Chatroom, though. I can see arguments both ways (typical lawyer comment, that!
) and, ultimately, it would have to be decided by a court - thus making lawyers more money! [This message has been edited by HugMonster (edited 10 October 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Saying something in the chat room would certainly count as permanent, for the purposes of libel.
Journalists are told that *anything* committed to any medium can count: even if you scrawl 'Got the barstewards!" on the margin of a proof for a story that exposes some nastiness, you're leaving yourself open. Certainly, when emotions are running high in the office because we've got some juicy story we (well, some of us!) take particular care to keep our emails to each other on the subject studiously neutral.
I always have a little scene playing in the back of my mind whenever I'm writing: there's a hard-faced lawyer holding up a piece of paper -- Exhibit A, m'lud -- in court, and on it are the words I'm currently spewing out. That counts for Pprune, the various other online places I hang out, the news input screen at work and anything other than private email to one other person on matters not due for publication under any circumstances. Even then, I'm reticent.
That's not just for libel, but for any of the various other areas in which I dabble where the law might take an interest. I don't think I've upset anyone enough to have such an interest taken in me, but you just never know.
Friends of mine certainly have -- one pal wrote a major piece about a very litigious individual for a well-known magazine, and had to endure a four-hour no-coffee grilling by the publication's lawyers prior to print
(they congratulated him afterwards: he's an exceptional chap). The same guy has had the works before, with his flat turned over and nothing taken and other chilling happenings.
Don't believe such things don't happen, and don't believe there isn't a place for paranoia when dealing with the powerful.
R
Journalists are told that *anything* committed to any medium can count: even if you scrawl 'Got the barstewards!" on the margin of a proof for a story that exposes some nastiness, you're leaving yourself open. Certainly, when emotions are running high in the office because we've got some juicy story we (well, some of us!) take particular care to keep our emails to each other on the subject studiously neutral.
I always have a little scene playing in the back of my mind whenever I'm writing: there's a hard-faced lawyer holding up a piece of paper -- Exhibit A, m'lud -- in court, and on it are the words I'm currently spewing out. That counts for Pprune, the various other online places I hang out, the news input screen at work and anything other than private email to one other person on matters not due for publication under any circumstances. Even then, I'm reticent.
That's not just for libel, but for any of the various other areas in which I dabble where the law might take an interest. I don't think I've upset anyone enough to have such an interest taken in me, but you just never know.
Friends of mine certainly have -- one pal wrote a major piece about a very litigious individual for a well-known magazine, and had to endure a four-hour no-coffee grilling by the publication's lawyers prior to print
(they congratulated him afterwards: he's an exceptional chap). The same guy has had the works before, with his flat turned over and nothing taken and other chilling happenings.
Don't believe such things don't happen, and don't believe there isn't a place for paranoia when dealing with the powerful.
R
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hugmonster - v.old Smith & Hogan, I would have thought that the law may have moved on, especially with the new statute (that I haven't read yet, but will when I visit the Bodleian on Monday).
The chat room is an interesting matter since for most people there is no way of recovering the material displayed once off screen, other than going to the owner of the server. Since servers seem to be all over the place this could make it difficult for a plaintiff to sue unless he/she had witnesses who would substantiate what was said. The problem is all these anonymous handles that make tracing people difficult and very expensive (but not impossible).
The important thing to remember is that if you aren't rich you won't be able to sue since there is no legal aid (poor people's reputations are clearly not worth defending). Also, a poor person may libel others, but is unlikely to be sued since he has no assets to sue for. The solution for the aggrieved party is an injunction which, if breached, would be a criminal matter or contempt.
For those who might wonder about the Human Rights legislation and freedom of speech and it's possible effect:
Article 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Hope this is of interest.
The chat room is an interesting matter since for most people there is no way of recovering the material displayed once off screen, other than going to the owner of the server. Since servers seem to be all over the place this could make it difficult for a plaintiff to sue unless he/she had witnesses who would substantiate what was said. The problem is all these anonymous handles that make tracing people difficult and very expensive (but not impossible).
The important thing to remember is that if you aren't rich you won't be able to sue since there is no legal aid (poor people's reputations are clearly not worth defending). Also, a poor person may libel others, but is unlikely to be sued since he has no assets to sue for. The solution for the aggrieved party is an injunction which, if breached, would be a criminal matter or contempt.
For those who might wonder about the Human Rights legislation and freedom of speech and it's possible effect:
Article 10
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Hope this is of interest.
Guest
Posts: n/a
stagger, you're quite right - but think about it for a moment. Is it actually a BAD thing? Only a few of the rights in the Human Rights Act are absolute (eg. your right to freedom from torture) - the rest are qualified rights.
To give you an example of why this should be so, let's take freedom of speech. Say I make a number of racist remarks in a public place, designed to, say, start a race riot. On the one hand, I can say I am merely exercising my right to free speech. If my right to free speech is absolute, no-one can stop me. As it's qualified, I can be stopped - by, for instance, a charge of inciting racial hatred.
I would say that's not a bad thing.
To give you an example of why this should be so, let's take freedom of speech. Say I make a number of racist remarks in a public place, designed to, say, start a race riot. On the one hand, I can say I am merely exercising my right to free speech. If my right to free speech is absolute, no-one can stop me. As it's qualified, I can be stopped - by, for instance, a charge of inciting racial hatred.
I would say that's not a bad thing.