Law of Communication Issues - Assignment Example

LAW OF COMMUNICATION Name Course Institution Date In the online article ‘We object! B-grade celebrity’s brush with the long arm of the law’ published in the Female’s Fortnightly magazine, Sam defamed Carey by publishing crucial and defamatory information regarding his social relationships. By exposing his inner circles through his article, Sam was also defamatory to Justice Desperate by giving information on the case that he was presiding over which, involved Melvin Meim who murdered his wife to run away with his mistress. Defamation as a form of abuse in law provides the platform when one is considered to be defamatory to the other party (Regan, 1995). The first instance is when one proves that the article or statement made against him or her was malicious and had the intention to hurt his reputation or feelings. The second factor being considered in a defamatory case is whether the statements were accurate in their information. If the information stated or written was accurate then it is deemed not to be defamatory as it portrayed the real picture of the situation. The third factor being considered in such a case was whether the words said were true and for the benefit of the public interest. This is in response of providing information that would in any case help either the police or aggrieved parties find justice. Sam being the author of the article that deemed to be defamatory has the following defenses in his suit to liberate himself from the charges. The first defense is that the information that Sam wrote was true and it portrayed the real picture of what was going on between Carey and justice Desperate. This can be proven through their relationship that Tom never wanted to be revealed. The second defense available to Sam is that the information that Sam wrote was absolute privilege and had malicious intention to Carey (Shade, 2008). In his article he attributes that Melvin may not get a fair trial as Justice Desperate is highly involved with Carey whom he is accused of murdering his wife in his pursuit to run away with his mistress. To him this information was to enlighten the public on the chances of fair trial that Melvin intends to get after the close relationship that Carey and Judge Desperate share. In his defense he can regard this information to be of absolute privilege as very few members of the public could access information of such criteria and intensity. Another defense available to him is that he made the statements under utmost good faith as he sought to assure the nation of the underlying justice failure in the nation. The fifth defense available to him is that he made a fair comment on a matter of public interest as he sought to provide his view and understanding on the situation of Melvin’s trial. The sixth defense available to him is innocent dissemination as he proves to the court that he was innocent when disseminating the information to the media (Flaherty, 1989). Several jurisdictional issues arise in relation to Female’s Fortnightly magazine as this article thought to be defamatory was published under its brand. If this article is found to be defamatory then this magazine remains liable to the injuries and other legal actions approved in a court of law. The first legal action to be taken against the magazine is might receive a letter ordering the magazine to retract the article from its publications. This may also initiate an apology to Carey regarding the information given toward them. If the magazine fails to retract the article then Sam has the legal powers to sue the whole magazine and its publications. The second legal action available to the magazine is that they may be compelled to pay Carey legal fees resulting from injury of his name being used wrongly. The last legal action available to the magazine is that, it may be banned from publishing any content to the public for a specified time or forever as they may be viewed as providing wrong information to the general public. These legal actions and defenses are available to ensure that both respondents are given a fair trial. This is evident in the case of Edward Lee Lamoureux verses Steven L. Baron in their case where Steven claimed that Edward uttered defamatory statements against him on social media. The judge presiding over the case viewed the statements made as not being defamatory by stating that. "A statement can only be defamatory if it is false; therefore true statements of fact about others, regardless of the damage rendered, are not defamatory (although such comments might represent other sorts of privacy or hate speech violations). Defamation may occur when one party (the defendant) writes or says something that is false about a second party (plaintiff) such that some third party "receives" the communication, and the communication of false information damages the plaintiff. By Sam, publishing the article he committed scandalizing contempt in publishing his article as most of the information he wrote regarding Judge Desperate and the case that he was presiding over affected his reputation and the view that the general public held over him. Despite publishing such an article he still has chances of defending himself by proving that the information he wrote was for the interest of the general public and in any way he did not intend to present any scandal regarding Carey and the Judge Desperate. The second defense available to him is to prove that the information he published was true and not fictions. True information is regarded to be sensitive and of a high caliber and intensity when being analyzed as it provides a positive view of how activities are being handled. After being privileged to access such crucial information, he stands to benefit from doubt that he published the information in utmost good faith in his innocent mind to inform the public. Despite such defense factors, Sam stands to suffer from various consequences if found guilty of the offense of scandalizing contempt in his publication. The first legal consequence that he stands to face is being banned from writing and publishing articles for a given time or forever. This is to teach him a lesson to publish information that is considerate to everyone. The second consequence that he stands to face is being forced to write an apology to the plaintiff and if he fails the plaintiff has the authority to sue him in a court of law. The last action that he stands to face is to be compelled by a court of law to pay a fine to the plaintiff being an award of the injury and emotional torture underwent. This is better explained in the case of Michael G. Parkinson verses Marie Parkinson whereby Michael accused Marie of defamation in an article he published. The court in simplifying the very complicated decision, said that because the plaintiff must prove a statement is false in order to win an action in defamation, it is impossible to win an action in defamation if the statement, by its very nature, cannot be proven false." Sam has breached Tom’s confidentiality by revealing in this publication that Tom had a relationship with Carey, information that Tom requested Sam not to mention in his article as he never wanted the general public to know. Sam was not considerate in his publication by revealing the same person who helped him to get the specified information. This is breach of utmost good faith as he promised Tom that the whole story will feature in his publication, excluding his previous relationship with Carey. Tom will in the long fall out with Sam as he will ensure that all the useful and secret information that he accessed through his staffer will be limited to him only. This will not only be the sole limitation as Carey will also work hard to ensure that his staffers do not gain access to crucial information regarding him and Justice Desperate. Sam will also be affected in his endeavor to include some big stories in his next edition to increase his current subscriber list of only 10,000 people or more. This will be an effect to his business as his sales will decrease (Folkard, 1908). Transfer of information is crucial as one need to ensure that such information is highly protected to avoid being leaked to anyone as it may pose both emotional and physical injury to the owner. Tom suffers from leaking such defamatory information to the media as he was one of the sole personnel who had access to it. After Sam being compelled by a court of law to provide the source of the information, Sam will be found to be defamatory to Carey as he was the source of the crucial information. Despite being liable to defamation and information leakage, Tom has various defense options that he may use against the plaintiff in his efforts to redeem himself from the charges. The first defense available to him is that the information he provided was for the interest of the general public in a view that the relationship between Justice Desperate and Carey could have affected the fairness of the Melvin’s trial. This will determine be determined in his efforts to prove that the Melvin killed his wife in his efforts to elope with his mistress. The second defense available to him is qualified or absolute privilege as he provided privileged information to the public that he had and felt was for the good will of the public. By providing the source and location where Carey and Judge Desperate met, Tom can defend himself to be loyal and using his knowledge to prevent the general public from unfair trial (Etzioni, 2007). The right to privacy can be explained as the privilege to keep the environment and domain surrounding us. This mostly includes our lives, body, property, thoughts, feelings and identity. This right provides which category of information between a person that needs to be shared and to what extent or depth that such information should be disclosed. On the other hand freedom of expression provides man with the right to express, communicate and share his own feelings, emotions and ideas regarding a specific situation. But such a right of expression is limited as every word spoken, written or published is held responsible for any formal or informal abuse to the third party as it shall be defined by law. Carey and Darren in this case should be allowed to exercise their freedom of privacy as the information published to the public was of high public interest and touching on their personal lives. Their privacy was also exposed as the public was able to determine who was responsible for the pregnancy a personal matter that could have been handled by the family. Sam on the other hand enjoyed both privileges in his right of expression by presenting a matter that he knew of could result to scandals within the public and also raise questions on the integrity of the fairness that Melvin stood to gain from his trial. Far from his freedom of expression, he personally stands to be liable in a court of law by providing defamatory information towards a Judge if he fails to prove that the information he gave was true. In both rights of expression and privacy, Carey and Darren are the most affected as their privacy was far much looked into and exposed to the public more than Sam whom freedom of expression was first limited before he published the defamatory article in the common Female’s Fortnightly magazine (Douglas & Linda, 1997). References Douglas, W. & Linda, M. (1997). An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law. 49 Federal Communications Law Journal Etzioni, A. (2007). Are new technologies the enemy of privacy?: Knowledge, Technology & Policy. Folkard, H. (1908). The Law of Slander and Libel. London: Butterworth & Company Flaherty, D. (1989). Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies: The Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States. Chapel Hill, U.S.: The University of North Carolina Press. Regan, P. (1995). Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill, U.S. The University of North Carolina Press. Shade, L. (2008). Reconsidering the right to privacy in Canada. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Read More