The Essence of Libel - Essay Example

The Essence of Libel A libel is the publishing of information in print or writing form including pictures as well as broadcasted through radio, film or television that is untrue about another person and has the effect of doing harm to that person as it damages his or her reputation through bringing the targeted person into ridicule, hatred and contempt of others. It is distinguished from slander in theta the latter is an oral defamation. A libel is open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who is able to prove that the written allegations are all about lies. It is sometimes believed that the person making the libelous statements must have done it deliberately and he or she is malicious. However, proof of malice does not allow a party defamed to sue another person for damages due to reputation. Libel in opposition to the status of a person who died allows surviving family members or friends to the deceased person to bring out an action foe damages. As far as the law is concerned, government bodies are considered as resistance to actions for libel on the considering that there are be no intention by non-personal entities and again public records are exempted from libel claims. Nonetheless, there is one known case whereby there was a financial settlement and a published correction when a certain state government incorrectly stated in a newsletter that a certain dentist had been disciplined for conducting himself illegally (Linda & Edwards 390) Rules against libel covering public figures like politicians and governmental people are special as stated in the U.S Supreme court decisions. The basic thing is that to uphold the right of expressing opinions and fair comments on public figures, the libel should be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor reporting errors are never libel, for instance, saying that a person was 55 years when he or she is only 48 do not constitute libel (Linda & Stanley 390) The news case discussed in this paper on libel is the High Court ruling that Sally Bercow’s tweet about Lord McAlpine being libelous. This case shows that a person does not just have to explicitly defame another person for it to be considered as libel. The tweet that was taken as offending was: “Why is Lord McAlpine trending? Innocent face” It was alleged that Lord McAlpine had abused children at a North Wales children’s home in 2013. He issued his denial when he said that he had been named on the internet and social media over claims relating him to an abuse at a Wrexham children's home. However, he refuted the claims saying that he had only visited Wrexham only once, he had never been to the children’s home, and that he had never visited any reform school or any other institution of the same nature. He said that he wanted to be given up his legal right to sue those who defamed him on internet and social media and vowed that he would take all possible steps considered necessary to protect his interests (Linda & Stanley 393) Background of the case Lord McAlpine’s denial came after former Bryn Estyn resident by the name Steve Messham stated on the BBC's News that he was abused by a senior politician of the era of Thatcher, but he did not name him. Claims were that he sexually abused Mr. Messham and other residents of the Wrexham children’s home, claims which he refuted. Lord McAlpine was a life peer whose grandfather was the sole founder of the McAlpine construction firm. After the demise of his grandfather, he acquired the title of Baron McAlpine of Weat Green in Hampshire. He became the treasurer of Conservative party in the late 1970s. During the time of this case, he was living in Italy. He claimed that there was a media frenzy that surrounded the allegations of child abuse in Wales and that the uninformed commentators who used the internet to accuse him of allegations he hadn’t done. Some newspapers, however, reported that the peer was just but a victim of mistaken identity. In his statement, Lord McAlpine who is a father of three children and had been married three times said that he was not accusing Mr Messham in any way of acting maliciously but he was obdurate that this was a case of mistaken identity. He said that he had every sympathy for Mr Messham and for the other guys who were sexually abused at the same time when they were residing in the Wales children’s home. He claimed that every form of abuse was illegal and he had absolutely no sympathy for the guys who committed the crimes. He said that the law should be followed such that those convicted to be brought to justice and be punished. During this time, he wanted to meet the police so that his name was eliminated from the enquiries. The case itself Two days after the BBC news wrongly linked Lord Mc Alpine to sex abuse claims, the wife of the Commons speaker, John Bercow tweeted. In the midst of the widespread speculation about his the identity of the alleged person, she wrote this on her twitter account: “Why is Lord McAlpine trending. *innocent face*." She claimed that she was extremely disappointed by the court ruling but the peer’s lawyer asserted that she had caused unnecessary pain. After the ruling of the case by Justice Tugendhat in the favor of Lord McAlpine's, Mrs Bercow claimed that she had just accepted a settlement with the lawyers of the peer. However, the amount of damages had not been disclosed yet. The BBC news night had claimed that a Thatcher-era politician had allegedly abused boys while still under the umbrella of children’s home in Wales but it did not specifically name Lord McAlpine as the sole victim. However, the former treasurer of the Conservative party was the identified wrongly on the internet. In 2013, the BBC unreservedly apologized to Lord McAlpine as well as settling a defamation claim of £185,000. This was at a time when Mrs Bercow tweeted showing her discontent on the ruling. After the tweet was, Lord McAlpine's solicitor named Andrew Reid said that the failure by Mrs Bercow of not admitting that her tweet was defamatory and it had some elements of libel caused unnecessary suffering and pain to the family of Lord Alpine over the past months since the tweet was made (Smolla et al 143). Nonetheless, Mrs Bercow apologized on the same in four consecutive tweets but denied that her initial tweet was defamatory. The solicitor to Lord McAlpine said that he was pleased to say that Mrs Bercow had finally seen sence and had accepted an offer of settlement on the same case. During the ruling of the case of Mrs Bercow, Mr Justice Tugendhat had to dismiss her argument that the question she had posed on twitter was entirely neutral. The inclusion of the phrase, "innocent face" showed that the tweet was ironical as the judge claimed it. The tweet thus amounted to an accusation that Lord McAlpine was a paedophile who was guilty of abusing sexually the boys who were living in the home care. In her statement, Mrs Bercow responded by saying that she was not to accept the ruling of the matter and that according to her; there was not a single element of libel in her tweet. However, she apologized repeatedly for the distress she caused to Lord Mc Alpine and his family. She asserted that she did not make the tweet with any malice and that she did not intend to libel anyone not only to Lord McAalpine. She said that she was being too conversational and mischievous and that that was her style of tweeting. However, she apologized publicly and priavately to Lord McAlpine and made two offers for compensation of the damages caused by her tweet statements. She believed that LordMcAlpine was undergoing a nightmare when issuing the proceedings as litigation cannot be a pleasant experience for a person. Mrs Bercow agreed that she had learned a big lesson through the hard way adding that the ruling made should be seen as some kind of warning to social media users since normal comments could sometimes be termed as defamatory even when the media user does not intend to hurt anyone and do not make any express accusation. As the whole case continued to unfold, the QC to Mrs Bercow, William McCormick had argued that the words ‘innocent face’ were merely an indication that the whole tweet should be read and analyzed in a deadpan manner but not as the way stage directions and notation on musical scores are made. On the other hand, McAlpine’s barrister sir Edward Garnier QC said that a moron in a hurry would have been unfamiliar with the context in which the tweet was made and published. In my view, Mrs Bercow could have argued that she was trying to ask a question but only if the tweet did not have the last part. However, the emoticom typed suggests the answer, showing that Lord McAlpine was guilty of the crime he was accused of as a mistaken identity. Justice Tugendhat ruled that the tweet was equally damaging and carried the same effect as the natural meaning of the tweet. In the first Amendment protection of the US constitution, professional bloggers and traditional journalists are entitled to immunity in libel suits as a federal court ruled. This means that anyone who has ever been harmed by false statements posted online and wants to be compensated through damages, then he or she must prove that the blogger acted carelessly in a way. A more demanding standard of proof that a statement made was deliberate applies if the person who files a suit is a public figure or a government official or cannot show evidence of an economic loss from the falsehood claims (Smolla et al, 159). Social media services such as twitter has been termed as a common medium for libel due to its nature as a source of news. It is not official and professional in general thus anyone could post anything they feel like. However, many social networks in the list hence twitter that has ever or is causing defamation and libel controversies. For instance, in the year 2007, there arose the libel case whereby various students were warned against using Face book and MySpace as social networks. This came because of students who had made derogatory statements against the staff at Keele University in the city of Staffordshire (Smolla et al, 143). Works cited BBC. 2012. Lord McAlpine says abuse claims false and defamatory. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk retrieved on 9 November 2012 BBC. 2013. High Court: Sally Bercow's Lord McAlpine tweet was libel. http://www.bbc.com/news/world. updated on 24 May 2013 Linda Edwards & Stanley Edwards. Tort Law for Legal Assistants, Cengage Learning, 2008. Murray Energy v The Gazette, 2012. Notorious Murray Coal Company sued to Charleston WV Gazette in August, 2012 for a column by Ken Ward, entitled Mitt Romney, Murray Energy and Coal Criminals.  The lawsuit,  Murray Energy v Gazette (brief), was filed in the State of Ohio, where defamation law  is similar to most other states Smolla, Rodney, Jerry Falwell & Larry Flynt. The First Amendment on Trial. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988. Read More