The UK Defamation Law - Essay Example

? UK Defamation Law UK defamation law – does it place an unwarranted restriction on ourright to freedom of expression? Introduction Defamation is defined as false communication intentionally made to defame an individual or a particular group. It has two fundamental categories i.e. written defamation or libel and spoken defamation or slander. In broader terms it is an act which induces hatred against targeted people through damaging their reputation and respect. Defamation Law comprises of all the legal rights and obligations strictly related to defamatory actions. It acts as a managing force between two opposing individuals or interests (BAKER, 2011, p.1). In the contemporary world freedom of expression is considered and acknowledged as a basic human right and therefore it must not be restricted through any means. However, in UK the defamation law restricts and hinders it by asking a proof for defamatory material. For instance, publishers and electronic media personnel have a right of freedom of expression which allows them to discuss anyone as per the public interest while on the other hand if the printed or broadcasted material brings reputational issues to the targeted person then he can secure his respect through the defamation law. However, this law is often used for unethical purposes and encourages libel terrorism because journalists are heavily tried under this law even if they have solid proofs for defamation (BAKER, 2011, p.24). Consequently it is a general belief that the UK defamation law restricts the freedom of expression. This paper aims to discuss UK defamation law while comparing it to the one in USA. Moreover, changes made to the England and Wales Libel Law will be discussed along with the consequences of legal changes in USA and UK Defamation Act. Comparison between UK and USA Defamation Law Defamation Law in the UK and USA belongs to the same origin. In both the countries it comes to play its role when the legal authorities face any juridical battle particularly associated with an honor of an individual (CROOK, 2009, p.234). In order to clearly understand the difference between UK and USA Defamation Law it is necessary to first discuss its advantages and disadvantages. Following are the most significant advantages of Defamation Law in USA (CROOK, 2009, p.237): It protects and safeguards the rights of journalists either in print or electronic media whereas on the other hand it restricts the powers and authorities of legislature and hence it encourages freedom of expression. Contrary to this, the plaintiff has an authority of claiming legal action against defendants if they publish or broadcast anything with serious ambiguity. However, the plaintiff would have to prove his claim to the court prior to any legal action. In this way the USA journalists remain safe from the burden of providing justifications to the court. The plaintiff who is usually a public figure and has good name among the majority also needs to prove his injured reputation, be it tangible or intangible. The USA public positively responds to the prevailing culture of freedom of expression and hence they acknowledge their defamation law as well. USA enjoys the advantages of heterogeneous media and therefore libel cases are usually solved on local grounds rather than on the national level. There is a significant threshold for confirmation of evidences to weaken the innocent First Amendment Defence, i.e. activated by hatred and projecting a wild ignorance for the truth. Following are the disadvantages of Defamation Law in UK (CROOK, 2009, p.241): According to the UK defamation Law the burden of providing evidence in case of defamation claim lies on the Journalists especially in criminal cases. In UK, rich and powerful individuals enjoy security under the defamation law due to the fact that defending libel in the country is more expensive then claiming injury to one’s reputation. This often leads media personnel to pay millions of pounds so as to defend their case. Public generally has prejudice against the media workers and therefore they suffer through the reputational cost in front of jurists. Awards of damages against defamation actually increase the risks for media professionals and therefore they fail to defend themselves even when they have a firm belief over their righteousness. Involvement of insurance companies in the decision making process of defamation often favors the plaintiff and the media personnel fail to protect libel actions. Plaintiff can easily sue the media personnel due to libel action without any proof or legal fee on the basis of Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA’s) also known as Contingency Arrangements. As per CFA the plaintiff has to pay no fee in order to sue the defendant. The above comparison between UK and USA Law of Defamation clearly reflects that journalists in USA enjoy more freedom of expression than media personnel in UK. In addition to this the media activities and discussions are encouraged in USA as compared to UK where media workers have to face huge consequences in case of libel. Furthermore, the Defamation Law is well appreciated in USA but in UK rich and powerful individuals can easily take unnecessary benefits from this law as they can also sue the media workers for libel actions. Hence it represents that UK Defamation Law places significant burdens and restriction over the freedom of expression (TIM CROOK, 2009, p.234). Changes to the England and Wales Libel law The unprotected freedom of speech was bringing immense disgrace for the journalists and other media personnel even though they were working and speaking for public interest. This eventually started libel terrorism in the UK compelling the government to make certain amendments in the Defamation Law (JOHN PLUNKETT, 2011). In 2011 the UK Government came up with certain amendment in the defamation law which proved to be beneficial for both the plaintiff and defendant since it was made to create balance between the two opposing forces. Following are the significant changes made to the England and Wales Libel Law (JOHN PLUNKETT, 2011): Libel Law Reforms include an option of Public Interests Defense for the defendants. Plaintiff would have to show substantial damage to reputation prior to suing media personnel. Juries would not be involved in trial concerning libel actions apart from serious exceptions. Now it would be significantly difficult for oversea plaintiffs to bring defamation cases in UK because the changes in libel law do not allow individuals having no connection with UK or Europe to bring their cases under English Law. However, people with UK citizenship do not fall under this category. The changes in England and Wales Libel law guarantees security to individual who disclose an honest option for the sake of public. It comprises a new constitutional defense of truth for restoring the existing common law defense of validation. Moreover, it will accelerate the court cases due to reduced costs related to defamation law. It has decreased the burden of proof over the media personnel by placing some part of it on the plaintiff. The overall changes made to the Libel Law reduced the criminal activities concerning Libel in addition to providing immense support and protection to the freedom of expression. This has subsequently facilitated journalists all over UK and hence it has been well accepted by the public in general (PLUNKETT, 2011). Although these changes made two years back have covered most of the unnecessary requirements of Libel Law however, still the legal authorities are required to make certain amendments in the reformed defamation law. For instance, the power to sue media personnel should be restricted to a further extent. Additionally the government would have to make it more supportive in relation to freedom of expression so as to safeguard scientific and literary work (PLUNKETT, 2011). Consequences of legal changes in USA Defamation Law USA introduced legal changes in its defamation law in first quarter of 2013. This act of reformation has actually brought UK legal authorities under stress due to the fact that now UK defamation law would not be considered in USA. The USA President has added Speech Act into the prevailing Libel Law so as to protect the national respect and prestige all over the world. Speech Act 2013 revolves around the major principle of protecting American writers. Therefore, as per Speech Act no American writer would be held accountable concerning defamation of anyone outside US and hence their freedom of expression would be protected internationally1. The legal changes in the USA Defamation Law had significant consequences over the Libel Law practiced in UK. For instance, due to Speech Act no plaintiff can claim reputation injury in UK courts against US writers. In addition to this Speech Act has also played a vital role in initiating further reforms in UK Defamation Law after the Libel Reforms introduced in England and Wales in 2011 as now UK Defamation Law is considered responsible for bringing disgrace to the country by facilitating Libel Terrorism. Furthermore, the hearings and decisions made in UK courts regarding Defamation shall not be enforced in USA and hence it will create immense legal issues for UK2. British Defamation Law by the Defamation Act 2013 After the changes made to the Defamation Law were practiced in USA, in UK also reforms were made to the Libel Law i.e. the introduction of Defamation Act 2013. Following were the most important changes made in favor of freedom of expression and overall protection of rights of UK citizens (DEFAMATION ACT, 2013, section.1: serious harm): Any statement would not be considered as defamatory until and unless it causes significant damage to anyone including financial loss. The defendant would have to certify that the statements made under libel were true and of public interest. It will reduce the harmful and disgraceful content published on internet however, in order to be safe in this case the defendant would have to prove that the content was uploaded through anonymous source on his website. Hence website owners are given increased protection. The academic and scientific publications must not be related to any individual in order to spread hatred against anyone. Moreover, any scientific journal would have to gain permission from concerned authorities prior to publication. Nothing would be published which is restricted by the law. The plaintiff would have to prove that the published material actually caused him disgrace. The existing conjecture in support of the jury trial is removed. A defense is introduced which abides the publishers to publish only the material of public interest. The above changes made in the Defamatory Law of UK have actually proved a fair balance between one’s reputation and the media right of Free Expression. Conclusion Freedom of expression is considered one of the fundamental human rights which revolve around sharing ideas and assumptions related to an individual, a group or anything else. However, this could be damaging for the reputation of public figures and therefore UK Defamation Law was made in order to safeguard the respect of people. But it was placing huge restrictions over the freedom of expression rather than protecting people and consequently the UK writers and media personnel were facing significant issues related to libel law (CROOK, 2009, p.234). In 2011 certain amendments were made to the England and Wale Libel Law. However, they were not sufficient enough to protect the freedom of expression. As compared to UK, USA has a different defamation law which does not suppress the writer rather it supports them internationally through Speech Act 2013 (OBAMA ACTS TO DEFEND US FROM UK LIBEL LAWS, 2013). According to this act no American writer can be trialed in UK courts as per their defamation law. Apart from having serious consequences related to the prestige and respect of UK legal authorities, this act not only protected the American writers but also initiated a Libel Law reformation in UK. The British Defamation Law 2013 protects the rights of defendants while placing the burden of proof over plaintiff. Moreover, the defamation on websites is gaining strength but since the publisher in this case is usually unknown therefore the defendant would not be held responsible for the disgrace of any individual (DEFAMATION ACT, 2013, section.1: serious harm). References Baker, R 2011, Defamation Law and Social Attitudes: Ordinary Unreasonable People, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK. Crook, T 2009, Comparative Media Law and Ethics, Routledge, USA. Defamation Act 2013, Legislation Government of UK, UK, viewed 19th August, 2013, Obama Acts to defend US from UK Libel Laws 2013, Index on Censorship, US, viewed 19th August 2013, Plunkett, J 2011, Government Unveils Libel Law Reforms, 15th March, The Guardian, viewed 19th August 2013, Read More