Tweet
A Close Look at Libel
In light of recent discussions on the accused athletes as well as on media responsibility (my choice of term), I’ve decided to, as it were, present a few facts for consideration. Originally, I had planned to name this post “Media Responsibility” and this would cover libel as well as other related issues. I changed my mind, however, because this forum has very limited archive capabilities, and so there’s no point in putting together a detailed, useful essay that will, nevertheless, disappear into cyberspace within a couple of weeks! It is certainly not a problem for me in putting together stuff like this, but I simply don’t see the point of expending the energy to do so when it will be gone in a few weeks! So, I’m simply going to do a brief discussion on libel.Hopefully, a lively discussion will ensue
.Libel laws in several English-speaking Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, lag behind those of the developed world, and there have been snail-paced efforts in Jamaica and the others to bring their somewhat archaic libel laws in line with modern realities. In fact, in late 2007 (I believe in either November or December) the prime minister of Jamaica authorized a committee to review Jamaica’s libel laws.
I deliberately used the word “archaic” above in reference to Jamaica’s libel laws for good reason. To give one simple example here, the limitation period in which a libel case can be brought against an individual or institution in England is one year from the date of publication. Places like Canada and, in the Caribbean, Barbados have a two-year limitation period. In Jamaica, on the other hand, we still abide by the 1623 Limitation Act of England, which stipulates a limit of six years from the date that the libelous statement was published. This, quite clearly, goes beyond simply being ridiculous!
Now, a concise definition of libel is in order. Libel, quite simply, occurs when published or broadcast material hurts someone’s reputation or destroys their earning power. For libel to occur, the statement in question must defame the person or institution and must NOT be provably true (“provably true,” thanks to the arguments of that great eighteenth century American attorney Howard Hamilton, means that one must be able to prove the truth of the statement or situation).
For libel to occur, several conditions must exist:
1. the material must be false;
2. the material must be defamatory;
3. there must be a specific reference, identifying an individual as well as hurting that individual’s reputation;
4. the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party (in other words, published).
The defenses against libel in Jamaica and in the Caribbean at large are (a) provable truth; (b) privilege; (c) fair comment and criticism. These defenses also exist in the USA and in Western Europe. Of course, in the case of any possible libel lawsuit against the media resulting from the current situation with the athletes (there will be none, but I’m just using a seemingly irrelevant hypothetical example here), the defenses “privilege” and “fair comment and criticism” would have absolutely no relevance.
However, at least one other major defense that does not exist in Jamaica, or in most Caribbean countries, is the defense known as “absence of malice”. This very necessary (in my opinion) defense exists in the USA, and provides a very important defense against lawsuits to publishers, etc. As I am typing this, a case from a couple decades ago involving the former Israeli defense minister (this was long before he became prime minister) Ariel Sharon and Time magazine springs to mind. From the little I can recall of this case, Sharon lost because he was unable to prove actual malice on the part of Time magazine.
A second defense that can help is a prompt and visible publication of an apology.
TO BE CONTINUED
Paul Marin -19 is one thing, 20 is a whole other matter. It gets even worse if they win the UCL. *groan*. 
05/18/2011.MU fans naah cough, but all a unuh a vomit?-Lazie 1/11/2015
.
Comment