Defamation: a Law or a War?
“It has long been clear that in democracies that cherish freedom of speech, speakers need, and deserve, a shield. But it is increasingly clear that in democracies intent on self-preservation, victims of damaging falsehoods need, and deserve, a sword.” -Sustein, 2020
The duty of the journalist is to report truthful, fact-checked, balanced stories to the public. In recent years, we have witnessed countless cases of journalists neglecting this responsibility, primarily caused by the exponential growth of digital and social media.
When information is published that is intentionally false, misleading and damaging to a person’s reputation, this is in breach of the defamation law. Defamation has two categories: libel, which is written word, and slander, which is spoken word. The law surrounding defamatory accusation is vital in maintaining ethical standards of journalism.
However, the legal system also provides countless loopholes which allow corporations and individuals to circumvent valid accusations that could potentially condemn them. This is an ongoing battle between journalists, who fight for freedom of speech, and those who claim to be protecting their privacy and integrity.
The conflict has increased in potency over the decade, and will continue to do so in light of recent legal changes. UK law amendments passed on the 11th November will benefit journalists in their defense, as the publication of matters of public interest has gained significance. However, there has also been an increase in government agencies refusing to agree to public record requests from journalists, requiring them to open costly lawsuits to gain access to information, along with a surge in people using (abusing) their power and defamation law to impede their exposure.
Nowhere is this more prominent than in Australia, where legal cases have resulted in publications having to pay massive compensation fees. This puts a huge amount of pressure on journalists who wish to write about matters of public interest. Earlier this year Australia witnessed its biggest even defamation payout, with Sydney’s Daily Telegraph (published by Nationwide News) having to pay £2.9 million to actor Geoffrey Rush, having made false allegations about his behaviour towards the actress Eryn Jean Norvill.
Another case that has been highly publicised this year is that of Julian Assange. Assange rose to fame in 2010 after his organisation, Wikileaks, published footage of the US military shooting civilians in Iraq, along with multiple other confidential documents. This began a chain of legal events for Assange, from detainment to sexual assault allegations to extradition threats. He is now imprisoned in Belmarsh Prison, London, while the fight for either his freedom or extradition continues. Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange’s lawyers, claimed the case to be ‘an attack on journalism’ lead by Donald Trump.
If you browse journalism threads on Twitter, it is impossible to avoid this case. It seems to me that Assange has become a kind of figurehead for social activists in the fight for free speech. Viewing his ‘2011 60 minutes interview’ on Youtube, the word hero features in every other comment, although many of his supporters seem to agree that his actions have been wrong, campaigning for his ‘pardon’ rather than his innocence. So where does the law draw a line?
As Sustein indicates in his quote at the top of this post, it is very possible to view the battle from both sides, and I don’t believe that I know enough of the Assange case or of the US Espionage Act to form a valid opinion on whether or not he should be pardoned. However, I do think that Assange deserves respect for his boldness in exposing such controversial matters of public interest. I hope that after his court verdict which is to be decided later this week, he will remain a hero of the people and not become a martyr.
Whatever the Jury’s decision, the result is only likely to inflame the defamation dispute. Meanwhile, we can try our best to maintain support for journalists sticking to their duties of truth, honesty and balance.
I’d love to know your stance on the Assange case or any of the legal disputes currently facing journalists. Feel free to comment on this post so that we can continue this important conversation.
Thanks for reading!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047811
www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jul/02/geoffrey-rush-case-daily-telegraph-and-nationwide-news-lose-defamation-appeal-against-actor
www.bnlaw.com.au/page/Insights/Insurance_Alerts/Professional_Indemnity_Financial_Lines/The_continuing_evolution_of_defamation_law_in_Victoria
www.youtube.com/watchv=Ubknv_CxSUY&t=672s&ab_channel=60Minutes
