media law 5 - readers comments and defamtion Flashcards

1
Q

what act outlines unmoderated comments?

A

Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002
(part of EU law) offers a defence in respect of unmoderated comments posted
by readers which are in breach of civil or criminal law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

EU Electronic Commerce Directive (Regulation 19) says media not liable for
content of statements as long as they….

A
    1. Don’t moderate
  1. Remove comments when alerted

(the offending material must be removed, or
public access to it disabled, ‘expeditiously’ by the website operator - e.g. a media
organisation)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what could be a viable defence against editing of readers comments?

A

A requirement of the defence is that the offending comment is removed
‘expeditiously’, or public access to it disabled, when a complaint is made
about the comment or the operator

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what IPSO clause relates to readers comments?

A

Clause 1 - accuracy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what are the two parts of defamation?

A

Libel - the defamation of a person through speech

Slander - the defamation of someone through a permanent form of
communication, i.e. an article.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what are the three things that defamation needs for proof?

A
  • defamatory statement
  • That they have been identified
  • That it has been published to a third person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

how does defamation seriously effect a persons reputation?

A
  • causes them to be exposed to hatred or to be shunned/ avoided
  • lowering them in the estimation of society
  • Disparaging the person in his/her business or profession
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what does section 1 of the 2013 defamation act say?

A

a statement is not defamatory unless its
publication has caused, or is likely to cause, “serious harm” to a claimant’s
reputation.

Has to have caused the body “serious financial loss”.

what words mean is what a ‘reasonable person’ would think
they mean.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what are the risks of Identifying a person as a suspect in a
criminal investigation

A
  • ## creates an inference of guilty verdict
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what are defamtory statements?

A

published matter which can create inference and
also from lax captioning and use of photos/
footage. - i.e. a defamtory headline

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what can a defamatory inference mean?

A

“A statement with a secondary meaning which can be understood by someone without
special knowledge who ‘reads between the lines’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what do innuendos indicate?

A

might seem innocuous but defamatory in the eyes of people with special
knowledge - “I saw our editor go into that house on the corner of sleep street”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what must a libel claimant prove?

A

1) defamtory statement
2) that they have been reasonably identified
3) published to a third person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what is the test for indentification/ defamation of a group of people?

A

would the published statement reasonably lead people acquainted with
you to believe you are the person being referred to?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what if a statement individually indentified one person as part of a group?

A

If a defamatory statement refers to someone being a member of a group, but
includes no other identifying detail of that person, all members of the group can sue
IF the group is sufficiently small

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

why might somebody be reluctant to take on a defamation case?

A

Uncertain how the judge will interpret what is written
u Difficult to prove
u Huge damages can be awarded if the case is lost
u Massive legal costs paid by the loser
- It is easier to settle out of court

16
Q

in a nutshell what does the person claiming have to prove?

A
  • They do not have to prove the statement is false
  • The journalist has to prove it is true
  • claimant must commence a defamation action within one year of the
    publication of the relevant material
17
Q

what is the benefit of a printed apology?

A

although you run the risk of repeating the libel it can settle down any imminent threat of a lawsuit

18
Q

what is a repetition?

A

a fresh libel - you can make different cases every time even if the same thing is said

19
Q

what is the single publication rule?

A

Section 8 of the new act adds in the “single publication” rule for online. - different to written

-But it will not apply if the manner of the subsequent publication is ‘materially
different’ from the manner of the first publication

20
Q
A