14 August, 2016

Topic 6 Protection of Reputation SEM9

Topic 6 Protection of Reputation
1.  Discuss  how a person’s reputation is protected;     
2.  Discuss   the   dangers   of  publishing   information   which   may   injure   the         reputation of another; and     
3.  Apply    protection  of  reputation  within  the  limits  of  the  available         defences.   ? 

INTRODUCTION  
Defamation law protects a person’s reputation from unjustifiable attacks. For the  journalist, publisher and broadcaster, the  law of defamation presents one of the  greatest   perils   in   their   vocation.   In   Malaysia,   the   statute   on   defamation   is   the  Defamation Act 1957.   For the media, everyone participating in or responsible for the publication of an  article that injures the reputation of a person can be sued. Each communication or  repetition of a defamatory statement is considered a separate cause of action. If a  defamatory statement is considered published in a newspaper, the action can be  brought    against  the  proprietor,  editor, author,  printer,  distributor  as  well  as  vendor.    Articles,  headlines,  photographs,   cartoons   and   other  illustrations,  photograph     captions,  reader’s  letters, all  advertisements  are  vulnerable   to  defamation risks.

There are, however, two features of defamation law that protect the media:  
(a)    False   statements   are   not  necessarily   defamatory.   The   law   of  defamation   is         activated   only   when   a   false   statement   actually   damages   a   reputation.   It         must lower the victim in the eyes of a right-thinking man.  
(b)    Truth     is  an  absolute    defence     no   matter   how     unfair   or  unnecessary       its         revelation is.   The law also reflects certain media disadvantages. The burden of proof is on the  media   defendant.   A   published   allegation   may   be   true   but   the   media   defendant  carries the burden of proving its truth. Costs and damages for defamatory actions  are very high and unpredictable.   This topic looks at the   law of defamation, its   ambit   of   application   and how the  media can use the available defences.   

6.1           WHAT IS DEFAMATION?  
The Defamation Act 1957 does not provide a definition for defamation. Refer to  Table 6.1 for definitions by various scholars.                            

Table 6.1: Various Definitions of Defamation           
Scholars                                            
Definition    Winfield & Jolowicz       

 Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a    (1998)                     person’s reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of                               right   thinking   members   of   society   generally   or   tends   to   make                               them be shunned or avoided.    Salmon & Hueston             The tort of defamation consists in the publication of a false and                               defamatory       statement    concerning     another    person    without                               lawful justification.    Dias & Markesinis           A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of    (1989)                     another by exposing him to hatred, contempt, ridicule or which                               tends to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members                               of society.   Generally,      a defamatory       statement     is  one   that,   in  the   circumstances      of  the  publication, would be likely to make reasonable and respectable people think less  of   the   plaintiff.  The   test  is  often   described     as  “lowering     the   plaintiff  in   the  estimation   of   right   thinking   members   of the   society”   or   expose   the   plaintiff   to hatred, contempt or ridicule or „cause him to be shunned or avoided. It is all a  question of respect and reputation.   For example:     An   item   on   the   8.00pm   news   reports   that   Dato   X   is   involved   in   corruption    during   his   reign   as   the   Chief   Minister.   Dato  X   may   have   a   cause   of   action    against the journalist and the television station  his reputation will have been    lowered in the minds of members of society.     A pop magazine reports that Miss S, a pop singer, is too ill to perform at her    next live concert. This is not defamation to suggest that someone is ill.    

6.2          TYPES OF DEFAMATION  
There are two types of defamation:  
(i)    Libel; and  
(ii)   Slander.   

Table 6.2 displays the differences between libel and slander.                          

Table 6.2: Differences between Libel and Slander                         
Libel Slander    
A defamatory statement made in writing            
Defamation   made   by   word   of   mouth   or   by    or at least some permanent form.                   gestures.    
Plaintiff  may    sue   for  libel  despite  no    Slander must be proven by actual damage.    financial loss.     

Section 3 of the Defamation Act 1957:    Provides:   For the purposes of the law of libel and    slander    the  broadcasting    of  words    by    means   of   radio   communication   shall   be    treated   as  publication    in  a  permanent    form.   Defamation, by means of broadcasting is    deemed as libel.                                             

6.3           ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION  
There   are   three   elements   for   defamation.   All   these   three   elements   must   exist  before an action for defamation may succeed:  
(a)    There must be a publication;  
(b)    The publication must contain words that are defamatory in nature; and  
(c)    The words must refer to the plaintiff.  

6.3.1         Publication   Publication   simply   means   that   the   defamatory   statement   or   material   must   be  made   known   to   some   person   other   than  the   person   to   whom   it   is   written   or  spoken.      Plaintiff  must     establish   that  the    material    complained      of   has   been  communicated   to   a   third   person   i.e.   to   someone   other   than   the   plaintiff.   If   the  communication   of   the   imputation   is   made   directly   to   the   person   to   whom   it   is  made   and   there   is   no   third   party   present   at   that   time,   then   there   will   be   no  publication for the purposes of defamation.  

Figure 6.1: The Art of Selling                   
Source: http://www.makingthenumbers.com/reprint2.html                                       

For the purpose of this element (publication) to be complete (refer Figure 6.1), the  language   used   must   be   understood   by   the   reader   or   the   audience   or   the   third  person     mentioned      above.    For  example,     a  newspaper      published     a  defamatory  article in Mandarin but the newspaper was circulated in a remote Malay village  where      no   one   understood      the  language.     The    element    of  publication     is  not  satisfied.   Every person who negligently takes part in or   authorises the publication of the  defamatory       material   is   liable.   Therefore,   the   writer,  editor,   publisher,   printer,  proprietor, distributor and vendor may be potentially liable. Similarly in a TV or  radio     station    those     who    hold    the  same    position    as   any   of  those   people  mentioned above, could be potentially liable. It is worth noted that in Australia, a  radio    station   has   been   held   liable  for  the  publication     of  defamatory      material  spoken      by   a   member      of  the   public    participating     in  a  talk-balk session  (regardless whether the interviewer endorses the remark or not).   If a media organisation republishes a defamatory statement, it may be liable for  republication   of   the   defamatory   statement   and   in   the  case   of   a   live   broadcast  interview,      liability  is  imposed     on   the  media     because    it  has   simultaneously  published the statement of the person  interviewed. The media may also expose  itself   to   liability   for   repeating   the   defamatory   statement   (hence   republishing   it)  not    withstanding      the  fact  that   they   might    be  protected    by   a  defence    in  the  following situations:  

(a)    In a situation made by a member of the public and simply reported as a fact         without the media organisation approving or adopting;   (b)    A statement is published by the media for the purpose of expressing doubt         to the correctness of the defamatory statement; or  

(c)    The    public    is  informed    by   the  media     of  the  existence    of  a  defamatory         rumour or publish the defamatory material via the letters to the editor        column.     In Lee Kuan Yew v. Derek Gwyn Davies & Ors [1990] MLJ 390    The     defendant      publisher     was    held   liable    for   defamatory       imputations    contained      in  a  statement    of  a  third  party   which    was    quoted    in  an  article    published in the Far Eastern Economic Review.  

6.3.2         Words Must be Defamatory in Nature  
There is no universal test to be applied to determine when statements or words  are defamatory in nature. Generally words are defamatory in nature, if:  
(a)    It   tends   to  lower    the   plaintiff  in  his/her    estimation     of  right   thinking         members of society in general;  
(b)    It exposes him/her to hatred, contempt or ridicule; and  
(c)    It causes him/her to be shunned or avoided. 

 In deciding what the words mean for the purpose of defamation, the intention of  the   writer   or   speaker   is   irrelevant.   Whether   a   statement   is   defamatory   involves  assessing   the   imputations   conveyed   by   the   statement   on   the   reader.   The   test   is  whether      under    the   circumstances      in  which    the   statement     was   published,     a  reasonable      person    to  whom      the   publication    was    made,    would     be   likely  to  understand that the statement is defamatory. The test is its effect on the ordinary,  reasonable reader. This reasonable reader is sometimes referred to as the control  group   or   the   hypothetical   referees.   The   control   group   does   not   necessarily  refer   to   a   particular   group   nor   should   it  refer   to   everyone.   It   is   enough   that   it  refers   to   an   appreciable   section   of   the   community.   We   can   also   say   that   this  control group is usually a group of law abiding citizens or average thinking men,  the   ordinary   reasonable   citizen   or   that   of   right   thinking   members   of   society   in  general.   What an ordinary reader thinks may change from time to time. For example, at  one time it is defamatory to call a person a German or a gay. This might not  be defamatory anymore in certain countries.     In Hasnul bin Abdul Hadi v. Bulat [1978] 1 MLJ 75    The court held that to describe a person Abu Jahal is a libel.   Words may be defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning. This refers to  the    meaning     of  words     at  their  face   value,   together    with   any   inferences     an  ordinary man would take in the light of his general knowledge, common sense  and     experience.    It  does    not  include    extrinsic    facts  passing    beyond     general  knowledge.                                        ‘

TOPIC 6       PROTECTION OF REPUTATION   
In Ng Cheng Kiat v. Overseas Union Bank [1984] 2 MLJ 140    The plaintiff has a current account with the defendant. The plaintiff claimed    that the defendant refused to clear two of his cheques which is contrary to his    obligation     to  do    so.  The    plaintiff further     claimed    that   the   defendant    wrongfully   and with bad faith wrote Account Closed on the cheques. The    defendant also informed certain people about the plaintiff’s accounts position.    The defendant denied that the statement Account Closed is defamatory. The    court held that the statement is defamatory of the plaintiff.    

In Luk Kai Lam v. Sim Ai Leng [1978] 1 MLJ 214    The   statement, Eh,   apakah   yang   hendak   dibanggakan   tentang   diri   awak?    Siapakah yang tidak tahu bahawa awak menerima tetamu di bilik atas dengan    bayaran   RM50   setiap   kali.   Pelacur   dan   Siapa   yang   tidak   tahu   bahawa   dia    dan Dia tinggal bersama di rumah penjagaan selama setahun sebelum mereka    berkahwin is defamatory in nature.   Often the words used by the defendant will appear innocent in themselves, but  have   a   hidden   meaning   which   would   be   recognised   in   the   light   of   other   facts.  This hidden meaning is called innuendo. In this situation the plaintiff will have to  show that the words complained are not defamatory in themselves, but become  defamatory in the light of certain facts known to certain people.     In Tolly v. Fry [1931] All ER 131    The    plaintiff,  an  amateur    golfer,  was  depicted    in  an  advertisement     for  the    defendants     chocolates.   He   successfully   showed   that    certain  people   familiar    with the golfers world would think that he had been paid for the advertisement    and that he has prostituted his amateur status.   

6.3.3         The Words Must Refer to the Plaintiff (Identification)  
The defamatory statement must refer to the plaintiff. It is not necessary to prove  that the defendant has the intention to defame the plaintiff. The plaintiff needs to  prove that the words published refer to the plaintiff. If the publication does not  specifically    name    the  plaintiff,  the  plaintiff  would     need   to  demonstrate     that  people interpreted it as referring to the plaintiff.

Table 6.3 shows some examples.                                            

Table 6.3: Examples of Defamatory Statements  
A person has been                  
A   newspaper      reported     a  magisterial    inquiry    in  which    a  named, but insufficient            

Detective A was said to be corrupted. It turned out to be  or inaccurate identifiers           a  

Constable     A   to  whom      the  allegation    referred.    Two  have been given                    

Detectives     A    (the  same    name)    sued   successfully,    after                                      demonstrating        that    acquaintances       thought     the   article                                      referred to them.   No one has been named,              In   the   case   of Butler   v.   John   Fairfax   Ltd.   (1994),   the   Sun-  but someone who meets               Herald     newspaper      published     an   article  titled  Backpack  the description of the              Murders   Police   Quiz   Socialite,   which   described   a   suspect  defamed person claims it            whom   police   were   questioning   in   relation   to   the   Belanglo  refers to him/her and               Forest backpacker serial murders. A 33 year old man sued  sues                                the    newspaper,       claiming     friends      and    relatives    had                                      identified   him   as   the   suspect   on   the   basis   of   identifying                                      factors listed in the article.   No individual has been              In John   Fairfax   Group   v.   Farley   (1993 ),   an   article   in   the  named, but the                      Australian Financial Review in 1992, defamatory references  defamatory article refers           were    made     to  officials  of   the  National     and    Victorian  to a small group of                 Farmers Federation and NFF and VFF officials and their  people of whom the                  lawyers   and   consultants   mates.   Although   they   were   not  plaintiff is a member or a          named, six individuals sued, claiming that readers thought  representative                      the   article  referred   to  them.    The   courts   have   decided     to                                      view    such   cases   in  terms    of  the  size  of  the   class  being                                      defamed,      the   generality     of  the   charge     made    and    the                                      extravagance   of   the   accusation,   with   each   case   considered                                      according     to  its  own    circumstances.     The   test  is  whether                                      ordinary,      reasonable      individuals       would      believe    the                                      defamatory statements referred to the plaintiffs.   A fictitious character has          In  E.   Hulton   &   Co.   v. Jones   [1910]   AC   20,   an   individual  been named. A real                  sued successfully after showing people thought a fictitious  person meeting the                  character by the same name in a story was him.  fictitious person’s  description sues,  claiming it refers to  him/her                                         

6.4           MEDIA DEFENCES  
Table 6.4 shows examples of media defences.                                 

Table 6.4: Examples of Media Defences    
Truth or                   Section 8 provides that in an action for libel or slander in respect    Justification              of   words    containing    two   or  more   distinct   charges    against   the                               plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason that the                               truth of every charge is not proven if the words not proved to be                               true   do   not  materially    injure   the  plaintiff’s  reputation     having                               regard to the truth of the remaining charges.     Fair Comment               Section 9 provides that in an action for libel or slander in respect                               of   words    consisting   partly   of   allegations  of   fact  and  partly   of                               expression of opinions defence of fair comment shall not fail by                               reason   only   the   truth   of   every   allegation   of   fact   is not   proved   if                               the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such                               of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as                               are proved.     Privilege                  Qualified privilege of newspaper is provided in Section 12     Reports of Judicial        Section 11 provides that a fair and accurate and contemporaneous    Proceedings                report   of   proceedings   publicly   heard   before   any   court   lawfully                               exercising     judicial  authority    and   of  the  judgment,     sentence   or                               finding of any such court shall be absolutely privileged, and any                               fair and bona fide comment thereon shall be protected, although                               such    judgment,     sentence    or  finding   be  subsequently      reversed,                               quashed   or   varied,   unless   at   the   time   of   the   publication   of   such                               report    or  comment      the   defendant     who    claims   the   protection                               afforded   by   this   section   knew   or   ought   to   have   known   of   such                               reversal, quashing or variation. However, nothing in this section                               shall authorise the publication of any blasphemous, seditious or                               indecent     matter    or   any   matter    the   publication    of   which    is                               prohibited by law.     Innocent                   Section    7  provides     that  a  person    who     has  published     words    Disseminator or            alleged to be defamatory of another person may, if he claims that    Unintentional              the   words   were   published   by   him   innocently   in   relation   to   that    Defamation                 other person, make an offer of amends under this section; and in                               any such case if the offer is not accepted by the party aggrieved, it                               shall be a defence.     Apology in                 Section    provides    that   apology    may    be  used   for  mitigation     of    mitigation of              damages.    damages                                                 

SELF-CHECK 6.1         
1.  What is the difference between libel and slander?         
2.   What are the elements of defamation?         
3.  How can you be protected against a defamation suit?           

ACTIVITY 6.1        
1.  Read   the   cases   Mohamed   Azwan   Ali   and   Normala   Samsudin   and            examine the reasons for the outcome of the two cases.        
2.   Discuss    the  implications     of  the publication     from    the  case   below.            (Extract of case taken from Mark Pearson, The Journalist’s Guide To            Media Law, at p.105.)             Fayn   v.   Thompson   Properties   Pty   Ltd   (1992)   16   Gazette   of   Law   and            Journalism 24 (Fish’s Arse Case)             Facts:            The   fashion   industry   magazine   Ragtrader   published   a  report   on   the            plaintiff’s company, which included this passage:             Although   there   are   a   few   surprises   in   business   failures   these   days,            Morrie’s mahulla raised eyebrows. He was known to have something            in common with a fish’s rear end when it came to spending. He was            high priest of the low-priced dress and his sons seemed to be doing it            steady in T-shirts and the like.  

? Defamation         law    is  an  important     area   of  law   to  those   involved     in  the      communications         industry.     The   understanding       of  its  elements     and    the      available defences help reduce the risk of being sued.  
? Three       elements    of  defamation      are  publication,    nature   of  the   words    and      reference to the plaintiff.  
? Defences        available   to  the  media    are  justification,  fair  comment,     privilege,      innocent disseminator and apology.                                     

TOPIC 6     PROTECTION OF REPUTATION  

Fair and Accurate Reporting                   
Justification  
Fair Comment                                  
Libel and Slander  
Freedom of The Press                          
Privilege  
Innocent Disseminator                         
Sub Judice Contempt  

Intentional Contempt

No comments:

Post a Comment