He said what?

 I relax into my first lecture, based on defamation, libel and slander. We begin with what defamation actually means, this being a civil dispute between parties causing the defamed candidate to be branded that for the rest of their lives, basically affecting their reputation in the public's eye. Every adult has a reputation in the eyes of the public who know him or her - whether famous or holding a public offence that has affected the general public. A persons reputation will be objectively based on facts, positive or negative about him or her, examples being academic qualifications, criminal convictions, religion, marital status ect. These facts will then piece together with more subjective opinions that individuals who have met or know the person will have. An example of defamation is one of the many Britney Spears cases where, after appearing in plainly soft pornographic music videos, she tried to sue a US

celeb magazine for ten million dollars after a slight on her sexual behaviour. The case failed.

Accredited to EuPaparazzi

Defamation is expensive, as well as damaging to peoples feelings and reputations. It is important to have a good reputation as it is worth a lot of money. An example being the directors of a firm of stoke brokers recently demanded £240 million to compensate them for loss of potential business due to a negative article published in The Financial Times. They were allowed to do so because in libel people do NOT have to prove that they have been damaged, only that they MIGHT be damaged.

In other circumstances some people have "no reputation to lose" basically meaning you cannot say anything worse about them. An example being Harold Shipman, found dead in his

cell, he was known as the mass murdering doctor, convicted to life imprisonment with the recommendation that he never be released. As of 2004, there is nothing that could damage his reputation due to the fact that he is no longer alive. The damage to the feelings of any relatives are not a factor in libel, there is no third party libel.

We then moved on to looking at slander, this being defamation in a spoken form. If you defame the person in a non-permanent form (in conversation) they you may have slandered them. As long as a third person party heard it, they may be entitled to compensation. To sue for libel you must have these three pieces of evidence:

Publication + defamation + identification = libel.

If you defame the person in a permanent form, this being in a newspaper or magazine and they have been clearly identified through an image then you may have libelled them.

Accidental libel involves someone positively identifying a specific person to that extent however there is another individual who fits that description as well. An example of this being the case of Martin Smithe, an accused paedophile who shares the same name as executive producer, Martine Smithe of The Apprentice. He sued for libel.

After a person has been defamed it can lead to:

1. Exposing them to hatred, ridicule or contempt

2. Causes them to be shunned or avoided

3. Discredits them in their trade, business or profession.

4. Generally lowers them in the eyes of morally right thinking members of society.

To defend against libel there are three key acts:

1. Justification - the defamatory statement is true and can be proved.

2. Fair comment - based on fact. Journalists often have a lot of scope to say mean, hurtful or controversial things about people, so as long as they make it absolutely clear that this is COMMENT not fact. It is an honest opinion.

3. Absolute and qualified privilege.

Malice also comes into play when looking at defamation as it can mean deliberately saying something that isn't believed to be true. Malice can destroy any defence you may have. If malice is transferred, this being if you quote someone in your own words, you then own that quote and take responsibility for that quote.