The Law of Defamation in England - Essay Example

The law of defamation in England and Wales works to protect corporations and individuals from unfair and unjust ments which unfairly damage their reputation, whilst also maintaining adequate safeguards to ensure that free speech and public debate is protected.’Critically evaluate the above statement. The British are a traditional people and most of the present day institutions that serve the citizens are evolved over many years. This is particularly true in the case of British Law. Consequently the law of defamation is evolved from the common law, which was undergoing evolution for four hundred years. The law of defamation is the product the attempts of jurists of different historical time frames, attempting to balance two diametrically opposing tendencies, namely, the safeguard of the esteem of individuals while ensuring the freedom of speech in the available channels of expression. This has been a tricky business in United Kingdom and reforms in the past have been only window dressing. After the enactment of the Defamation Act of 1952 it took over four decades for attempting a major change in this direction, with the institution of the Defamation Act of 1996. The drafting of 1996 Act is necessitated by the spurt of the media and their global nature. The huge compensations which individuals are able to get from the press and electronic media for cases involving the reputation of individuals was not conducive to the development of the freedom of the media in the age of free information. Though, it is a subject under the purview of the law, its ramifications are huge on the functioning of the media, discouraging legitimate investigative journalism and open criticism of public policy. Since media today is international in production and dissemination, the British law can become a stumbling block in the international freedom of press. Magazines, newspapers and broadcast though might have originated elsewhere might create unforeseen legal consequences if any of the stories are defamatory in nature when they are circulated in Britain or broadcast through British stations. Globalization has produced a crisis in the tendency of the state to control the media. Broadcasting is the central channel in the formation of opinion in the globalized world. The rapid progress in technology increased the possibility of sending news and view across the globe. The British broadcasting industry is a predominantly a state affair in spite of the much trumpeted independence and autonomy. The defamatory Act if pursued vigorously might ultimately affect even the functioning of BBC. Elsewhere in the world the media can go to big extent in grilling the public servants, celebrities and captains of industry. But in Britain Defamation act is the shield to protect them. But in the globalized scenario if the BBC is going to function as a guarded organization it is going to lose its competitive advantage in the globalized world. So the modification of the defamation act is also a must for the survival of the British Media. So in the print and broadcast media changes were imperative to survive in the globalized world. The Defamation Act of 1996 came out, after much fan fare about the drastic changes that it would bring about in the legal system, the changes were merely peripheral and disappointed those who expected an overhauling of the Act. The marginal provisions in the defamatory act have made many disappointed and consider the reform-exercise as a lost opportunity. There are defenses that address the problems created by the new technologies and fast growing scope of news reporting as an international matter. The other types of provisions are meant to reduce the expenditure in fighting less serious cases of libel and to reduce the immunity enjoyed by the people in power. The Defamation Act of 1996 falls short in addressing the problems created by the globalized context. Especially the provision called “Justification” puts the entire burden of proof on the defendant. In fact, as McNae points out: It is a complete defense to a libel action… to prove that the words complained of are true. This defense is known as justification. McNae cites certain cases. For example, in 1997, The Sunday Times tried to prove the truth of report about Albert Reynolds, the former Priminister of Ireland. The reporter told the court that he had not kept the notes. However, since action for defamation has to be initiated within one year of publication of the report, it may not be impossible to keep notes. But it has practical difficulties. The Act does not go in big way in the preservation of the freedom of the speech and press when it comes to the cases dealing with public figures. In fact it is the public servants that should be vigorously chased and made accountable to their deeds. Media, as it exists, is a spontaneous activity. Every word that the media reports cannot be authenticated with supporting documents. Media often relies on hearsay information. This information may be reliable. But reliability in certain cases may not possible to prove. Now, what is said in the media impromptu may not be available in the court for the purpose of evidence. This would make the press and broadcast media excessively cautious which will take away the vigor of news reporting in Britain, while elsewhere the news reporting can go on freely without fearing the legal cudgel. It is unfortunate that the British Parliament has doggedly resisted plans to shift the burden of proof on the issue of truth in the defamation cases. However this did not get much support. The guarded response of the Members of the Parliament to changes in law might have sprung from the fears they have of the British Press running riot like the American journalists. The peripheral changes that the Defamation act underwent is also due to the economic conditions in which the media is now functioning. Globalization has brought about a compulsive behavior pattern on the media. Much of media today has only entertainment value only. Media which is vying with one another in profit margins and running the risk of take over, should, first and foremost, be economically viable. Slander, mudslinging, endless celebrity gossip is now the new diet of the avid viewer of today. If the proper rules are not in place there is the risk of media banking on the liberal laws to gossip, slander and mudsling to steal the show in the world of global competition. The obsessive preoccupation of the tabloid press with the personal live of the Royal family and the hunts of the British paparazzi to feed the fantasies of the curious viewers and readers who are addicted to sensation that do not have any import on the lives of the nation, are example that doubt the law makers have about the British media. In conclusion, the central role of the print and broadcast media is to provide a forum for the citizens to engage in discussion, debate and opinion formation in matters of great import. Thus the media is a watchdog of democracy. The British legal system has not let its reins on the media, to fulfil this function of the sentinels of democracy. While the concerns are valid on the part of the government, in the age of global communication the British media cannot function with enough spontaneity to vie with other competitors. Read More