The rights of the media

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-13 05:09am

I saw a interveiw of Micheal Barrymore on TV acouple of hours ago. It would seem that this guy, an entertainer,had his career ruined by ourright falshoods and a possible case of tampering with evidence {in this case a body}. This case is being reopend by British police.

The British media, it would seem, has printed what amounts to libel, lies and gross distortions of the facts, to ruin a man to sell papers.

How should such matters be delt with given the need for freedom of speech and the need for a free press?.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-04-13 05:14am

Doesn't Britain have very strict libel laws (at least compared to the US which requires malice aforethought as a condition for libel)?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-13 05:18am

Glocksman wrote:Doesn't Britain have very strict libel laws (at least compared to the US which requires malice aforethought as a condition for libel)?

I am not entirly sure. They probably are stricter than in the USA,but I cannot say one way or the other.

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2003-04-13 09:21am

British libel laws place the burden of proof on the defendant. In America, the plaintiff must prove that the information in question was false, that the defendant knew it was false at the time it was provided to the public, that this was done maliciously, and that it caused harm to the defendant. In Britain, these standards do not apply; a publisher can be held responsible for any false information even if there was no malice and the defendant did not know it was false at the time.

Further, public figures can sue for libel in Britain, and they do so regularly. Britain also does not have a constitutionally-mandated free press; the government can, at any time, remove these freedoms.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-14 03:26am

Frank_Scenario wrote:snip

Britain also does not have a constitutionally-mandated free press; the government can, at any time, remove these freedoms.

Thats doubtfull. That the British constitution, unwritten as it is, does not specificaly say something does not mean that it isnt there. You could no more remove the freedom of the press than you could remove fredom of speech, as that is not part of the constitution either.

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2003-04-14 10:19am

Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats doubtfull. That the British constitution, unwritten as it is, does not specificaly say something does not mean that it isnt there. You could no more remove the freedom of the press than you could remove fredom of speech, as that is not part of the constitution either.

Actually, the 1989 Official Secrets Act allows the government to forbid the publication of anything that affects national security, defense, international relations, the last of which allows quite a bit of leeway. While Britain does have a free press, it can be stopped at any moment. Greg Palast, an investigative reporter for The Observer, mentions this in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy; as has George Monbiot of the Guardian, and the University of Houston. Again, Britian has a free press, but it is not guaranteed, unlike the American press.

Also, I'm no expert on constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure that if the law doesn't say something, then it's not there. The American Bill of Rights does specifically say that rights not enumerated are reserved for the states and/or the people, but I'm not aware of any similar clause in the documents that make up the core of British law, or in British common law (though, again, I'm not an expert).

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-14 10:37am

Didn't a judge in Britian recently order the media to supress some information regarding a criminial case of some sort? A month or two back?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-15 05:46am

Frank_Scenario wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:Thats doubtfull. That the British constitution, unwritten as it is, does not specificaly say something does not mean that it isnt there. You could no more remove the freedom of the press than you could remove fredom of speech, as that is not part of the constitution either.
Actually, the 1989 Official Secrets Act allows the government to forbid the publication of anything that affects national security, defense, international relations, the last of which allows quite a bit of leeway. While Britain does have a free press, it can be stopped at any moment. Greg Palast, an investigative reporter for The Observer, mentions this in The Best Democracy Money Can Buy; as has George Monbiot of the Guardian, and the University of Houston. Again, Britian has a free press, but it is not guaranteed, unlike the American press.

Also, I'm no expert on constitutional law, but I'm pretty sure that if the law doesn't say something, then it's not there. The American Bill of Rights does specifically say that rights not enumerated are reserved for the states and/or the people, but I'm not aware of any similar clause in the documents that make up the core of British law, or in British common law (though, again, I'm not an expert).

There is what the law says and what could actually happen. But in this case I agree, I conceHACKK,GASP *thud*

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-04-15 06:01am

Frank_Scenario wrote:University of Houston.

Grr, this site has this about NZ

Due to the 1992 Defamation Act, the media have not faired well in defamation cases in New Zealand.

Common law has changed this since the Rt Hon David Lange {former PM} sued for libel against a magazine. Went to the privy council and the result was that its is now very difficult to sue our media unless the facts are deliberatly wrong.