DOCSLIB.ORG

Mclibel: a Case Study in Enlish Defamation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mclibel: a Case Study in Enlish Defamation MCLIBEL: A CASE STUDY IN ENGLISH DEFAMATION LAW MARLENE ARNOLD NICHOLSON* I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................2 II. FREEDOM OF SPEECH JURISPRUDENCE UNDER THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION .....................................................................13 A. THE COMMISSION DECISION IN MCDONALD’S ...........................................16 B. HERTEL V. SWITZERLAND ............................................................................20 C. PRINCIPLES OF ADJUDICATION UNDER ARTICLE 10 ..................................24 D. APPLYING ARTICLE 10 TO MCDONALD’S...................................................30 III. DEFAMATION LAW IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES .........................................................................................................31 A. WHEN IS A STATEMENT DEFAMATORY?....................................................31 B. JUSTIFICATION ..........................................................................................34 C. FAULT.......................................................................................................35 D. “OPINION,” “FAIR COMMENT” AND “PROVABLE AS FALSE”.....................36 IV. THE MCDONALD’S OPINION.................................................................43 A. STARVATION IN THE THIRD WORLD..........................................................45 B. DESTRUCTION OF RAIN FORESTS...............................................................58 C. USE OF RECYCLED PAPER MATERIALS ......................................................61 D. MCDONALD’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR LITTER..............................................69 E. MCDONALD’S FOOD IS UNHEALTHY.........................................................71 F. ADVERTISING............................................................................................86 G. WORKING CONDITIONS.............................................................................88 H. CRUELTY TO ANIMALS..............................................................................95 I. SUMMARY OF TRIAL COURT OPINION .....................................................101 V. ADDENDUM: THE APPELLATE DECISION......................................102 A. ENGLISH DEFAMATION LAW ...................................................................103 B. THE APPLICATION OF ENGLISH LAW........................................................108 C. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE MCDONALD’S APPELLATE COURT OPINION..................114 D. SUMMARY OF APPELLATE COURT DECISION ...........................................125 VI. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................127 APPENDIX: MCLIBEL FACTSHEET..........................................................134 * Professor of Law, DePaul University; J.D., 1968, B.A., 1961, U.C.L.A. I am appreciative of the research assistance of Michele Lynn Birkmeier, David Lipschultz, Michelle Mills, Yvonne Ocrant and Kevin Vodak. I am also grateful for the research support from Deans Teree Foster and John C. Roberts, and Acting Dean Mark Weber. 2 Wisconsin International Law Journal On March 31 of 1999, the English Appellate Court decided the defendants’ appeal in McDonald’s v. Steel, the case discussed in this article. The full Appellate Court opinion was released during the summer. The Appellate Court left most of the trial court’s judgment in place. However, that court did disagree with the trial court on the application of the law to some of the allegedly defamatory statements. An addendum discussing the ways in which the Appellate Court opinion differed from the trial court opinion and modified the defendants’ liability for defamation has been added at the end of this article. The modifications in the Appellate Court opinion did not significantly change either the English law of defamation or the concerns regarding the negative effect of that law on freedom of public discussion in England that are addressed in this article. I. INTRODUCTION Helen Steel and Dave Morris joined “London Greenpeace” in 1980. The organization was not connected to international Greenpeace; rather it was an independent activist group that campaigned for social change on a broad range of issues. One of the group’s projects was the distribution of a pamphlet that was published in 1986, entitled “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s.”1 McDonald’s hired private detectives to infiltrate the organization, and ultimately threatened to sue the individuals who were distributing the pamphlets.2 In order to avoid being sued for libel, three of the five apologized, and in 1990 promised to stop distributing the pamphlets. But Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris, who have been dubbed the “McLibel 2,” refused.3 No doubt this obstinacy was not expected, as McDonald’s had apparently been successful in the past in stopping criticism and forcing apologies from much more affluent foes, including the BBC.4 McDonald’s U.S. and its U.K. affiliate (“First Plaintiffs” and “Second Plaintiffs” respectively) filed suit against Morris and Steel. The more than two and a half-year trial, the longest in English history, began in June of 1994, after twenty-eight pre-trial hearings.5 In June of 1997, in a 750 page judgment, Justice Rodger Justice Bell found that McDonald’s had been 1 See discussion in John Vidal, You and I Against McWorld, GUARDIAN (London), Mar. 9, 1996, at T12. 2 See Barry James, English Activists Bear Up Under Ferocious Big Mac Attack: David vs. Goliath/The Sequel, INT’L HERALD TRIB., May 20, 1997, at 2, available in LEXIS, NEWS Library. 3 Sarah Lyall, Golden Arches Are Victorious, But Bloodied, in a English Courtroom, N.Y. TIMES, June 20, 1997, at A1. 4 According to The Guardian, during the mid 1980’s, McDonald’s had “forced apologies or retractions from the BBC, The Guardian, and the Scottish TUC, effectively closed down the Transnational Information Centre, stopped the transmission of at least one [T.V.] film and silenced a play.” Vidal, supra note 1. 5 See id. Vol. 18, No.1 McLibel: A Case Study in Defamation Law 3 defamed and assessed damages equivalent to $96,000 against the two defendants.6 It is not very likely that McDonald’s will ever recover its $96,000, as Mr. Morris is an unemployed former postal worker and Ms. Steel is a part time bartender.7 But the president of McDonald’s U.K. testified that this was not about money—it was about preventing lies being used to try to “‘smash’” the company.8 The recovery would not come close to compensating McDonald’s for its costs in the law suit, which have been estimated to be about $10 million, including over £ 6,500 per day of trial for their team of top English libel lawyers.9 Although a McDonald’s official commented that they were “broadly satisfied,”10 some have suggested that it was at best a Pyrrhic victory.11 The case became a public relations disaster around the world, thanks in large part to the Internet, which now has a very active anti-McDonald’s website. The site displays the offending pamphlet as well as even more derogatory comments about McDonald’s, including some allegations from other sources that McDonald’s had previously successfully suppressed by threats of law suits.12 The title of a newspaper article, “David vs. Goliath/The Sequel,”13 captures the essence of most of the extensive press coverage of the trial. Although defamation is the only civil action that is routinely still tried by a jury in England, the defendants were denied their request for a jury.14 6 See McDonald’s v. Steel, available in <http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict>[hereinafter Steel]. See Lyall, supra note 3. The compensation was “for the damages to its trading reputation and goodwill, and to vindicate its good name such as it may be…” Sarah Lyall, Her Majesty’s Court Has Ruled: McDonald’s Burgers are not Poison, N.Y. TIMES, June 22, 1997, § 4, at 7 (quoting the summary of Justice Bell’s ruling in the McLibel trial). 7 Their combined annual income is reported to be $12,000. See James, supra note 2. In 1996, McDonald’s had earnings of $31.8 billion. McDonald’s Plans to Invest $1 Billion in Latin America, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 9, 1997, at D4. McDonald’s has indicated that it does not intend to collect from the defendants. See Lyall, Golden Arches, supra note 3, at A5. 8 Maurice Weaver, McDonald’s May “Waive Damages if It Wins Libel,” DAILY TELEGRAPH (London), May 8, 1996, at 5. 9 See Vidal, supra note 1. Presumably, McDonald’s did not ask to be compensated for its costs as that would obviously have been futile and a public relations nightmare. England and nearly all legal systems outside the United States ordinarily require losing parties to pay the winners’ costs. See, e.g., MARY ANN GLENDON ET. AL., COMPARATIVE LAW 171-72 (1994); RUDOLF B. SCHLESINGER ET AL., COMPARATIVE LAW: CASES-TEXTS-MATERIALS 353-54, 366-70 (5th ed. 1988). Exceptions apply in some systems when 10 Lyall, supra note 3. The official response from the chairman of McDonald’s was that, “For the sake of our employees and our customers, we wanted to show these serious allegations to be false, and I am pleased that we have done so.” Id. 11 See Lyall, supra note 6. 12 See Vidal, supra note 1. 13 James, supra note 2. 14 Under the Supreme Court Act of 1981, libel and slander is to be tried by a jury. See Supreme Court Act of 1981, ch. 54 (Eng.). However, there is an exception if a party applies for a bench trial and the judge determines that “the case is scientifically
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bears and Traditional Medicine World Animal Protection Email: [email protected]
    Correspondent: Mr Gilbert M. Sape Global Head of Campaign - Bears and Traditional Medicine World Animal Protection Email: [email protected] Joint open letter to: Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Dr Zhang Qi Director General Co-ordinator of Traditional and Complementary World Health Organisation Medicine Unit (TCM) Avenue Appia 20 Department of Service Delivery and Safety 1211 Geneva World Health Organisation Switzerland Avenue Appia 20 1211 Geneva Switzerland 6th April 2020 Dear Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and Dr Zhang Qi, COVID-19: Health risks and wildlife1 markets – the need for a permanent global ban on wildlife markets and a highly precautionary approach to wildlife trade. The undersigned organisations acknowledge and commend the World Health Organisation’s current efforts to contain the pandemic spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). On the occasion of World Health Day, in the midst of a global pandemic believed to have originated in a live wildlife market, we call upon the WHO to publicly and unequivocally state the proven link between these markets and serious threats to human health. In line with its stated mission to serve public health at all times, we urge the WHO to recommend that governments worldwide permanently ban live wildlife markets and the use of wildlife in traditional medicine. This decisive action, well within the WHO’s mandate, would be an impactful first step in adopting a highly precautionary approach to wildlife trade that poses a risk to human health. While a robust global response is critical in detecting, treating and reducing transmission, it is equally necessary to take vital measures to prevent similar emerging infectious diseases developing into pandemics with the associated threats to human life, and social and economic well-being.
    [Show full text]
  • Clowning with Kids' Health – the Case for Ronald Mcdonald's
    Brought To You By: and its campaign Clowning With Kids’ Health THE CASE FOR RONALD MCDONALD’S RETIREMENT www.RetireRonald.org Table of Contents FOREWORD ....................................................................................... Page 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. Page 2 RONALD MCDONALD: A RETROSPECTIVE .......................................... Page 4 Birth of a pioneer…in marketing to kids ................................................ Page 5 Clown at a crossroads ........................................................................ Page 6 Where’s RONALD? ........................................................................... Page 7 What did Americans find? .................................................................... Page 8 Clowning around schools .................................................................... Page 8 McSpelling and Teaching .................................................................... Page 10 The Ironic Ronald McJock .................................................................... Page 11 Providing his own brand of healthcare ................................................... Page 12 Taking to the tube .............................................................................. Page 13 The McWorld Wide Web ....................................................................... Page 14 PUTTING RONALD ON KIds’ BraINS, PAST PARENTS ......................... Page 15 The power of getting the brand in kids’ hands
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 9 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 Which Was Introduced by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Act 2005 and Commenced on 23 February 2006
    PROTECTING REPUTATION DEFAMATION PRACTICE, PROCEDURE AND PRECEDENTS THE MANUAL by Peter Breen Protecting Reputation Defamation Practice, Procedure and Precedents THE MANUAL © Peter Breen 2014 Peter Breen & Associates Solicitors 164/78 William Street East Sydney NSW 2011 Tel: 0419 985 145 Fax: (02) 9331 3122 Email: [email protected] www.defamationsolicitor.com.au Contents Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Section 2 Current developments and recent cases ................................................. 5 Section 3 Relevant legislation and jurisdiction ..................................................... 11 3.1 Uniform Australian defamation laws since 2006 ........................................ 11 3.2 New South Wales law [Defamation Act 2005] ........................................... 11 3.3 Victoria law [Defamation Act 2005] .......................................................... 13 3.4 Queensland law [Defamation Act 2005] ..................................................... 13 3.5 Western Australia law [Defamation Act 2005] .......................................... 13 3.6 South Australia law [Defamation Act 2005] .............................................. 14 3.7 Tasmania law [Defamation Act 2005] ........................................................ 14 3.8 Northern Territory law [Defamation Act 2006] .......................................... 15 3.9 Australian Capital Territory law [Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002] ............. 15 3.10
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Number of Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative
    Assembly and Executive Review Committee Review of the Number of Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly and on the Reduction in the Number of Northern Ireland Departments Part 1 - Number of Members of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report, the Minutes of Evidence, Written Submissions, Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Papers and Other Papers Ordered by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to be printed on 12 June 2012 Report: NIA 52/11-15 (Assembly and Executive Review Committee) REPORT EMBARGOED UNTIL COMMENCEMENT OF THE DEBATE IN PLENARY Mandate 2011/15 Second Report Committee Powers and Membership Committee Powers and Membership Powers The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is a Standing Committee established in accordance with Section 29A and 29B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 59 which provide for the Committee to: ■ consider the operation of Sections 16A to 16C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and, in particular, whether to recommend that the Secretary of State should make an order amending that Act and any other enactment so far as may be necessary to secure that they have effect, as from the date of the election of the 2011 Assembly, as if the executive selection amendments had not been made; ■ make a report to the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Executive Committee, by no later than 1 May 2015, on the operation of Parts III and IV of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and ■ consider such other matters relating to the functioning of the Assembly or the Executive as may be referred to it by the Assembly.
    [Show full text]
  • L'activisme Animaliste Et Ses Répercussions Sur La Politique Belge
    Université Libre de Bruxelles Institut de Gestion de l’Environnement et d’Aménagement du Territoire Faculté des Sciences Master en Sciences et Gestion de l'Environnement L’activisme animaliste et ses répercussions sur la politique belge Mémoire de Fin d'Etudes présenté par THIBAUT, LISA en vue de l'obtention du grade académique de Master en Sciences et Gestion de l'Environnement Finalité Gestion de l’Environnement Année Académique : 2018-2019 Directeur : Prof. Edwin Zaccai Mes remerciements les plus profonds aux douze activistes et militants politiques qui m’ont accordé leur confiance et ont pris le temps de répondre à mes questions. Grâce à eux, j’ai pu mieux comprendre la lutte antispéciste et ce qu’elle signifiait au quotidien pour chacun d’entre eux. Merci tout particulièrement à mon directeur de mémoire, le professeur Edwin Zaccai, pour son aide précieuse, ses corrections et ses conseils avisés. Merci à William Thibaut, Myriam Chapuis et Corneliu Gaina pour leur soutien sans faille. Merci à Julie Pondant, Violaine Jouan, Quentin Aubert, Viviane Thibaut et Géraldine Papegnies pour leurs conseils et leur relecture. Résumé La problématique du mémoire s’articule autour du cas de l’animalisme en Belgique, et plus particulièrement de la branche de la lutte antispéciste, et de ses retombées dans le monde politique. Quel pouvoir politique peuvent avoir concrètement ces mouvements sur les animaux ? Pour répondre à cette question, un état des lieux concernant les droits des animaux a été réalisé dans plusieurs parties du monde, avec un focus particulier sur l’historique et la situation actuelle de l’Union Européenne.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter to the European Commission
    To: Commissioners Kyriakides and Wojciechowski European Commission B-1049 Brussels, Belgium Please reply to: Animal Politics Foundation [email protected] Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 32 1012RZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Subject: Live animal transports 15th of April 2021 Dear Commissioners Kyriakides and Wojciechowski, We, politicians from all over the world, call on the European Commission to take immediate steps to ensure effective protection of animals during long-distance transport. Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU stipulates that, as sentient beings, full regard should be paid to animal welfare requirements. However, time and time again, it has been shown that this fundamental part of the EU treaties is being ignored in the case of long-distance live animal transport. We ask the European Commission to act with the urgency appropriate to such situations involving the life and death of sentient beings. Millions of animals are transported annually, both within the European Union and to third countries. Animals are transported in terrible conditions, on journeys that can last several days, weeks or even months. They are crammed inside often dirty vehicles (trucks, vessels, and airplanes), suffer from high temperatures, dehydration, a lack of ventilation and stress. Many die during the journey. The recent tragedies on board the Queen Hind, Karim Allah and Elbeik vessels show it is time to take action. In all these cases, contingency plans were lacking, massive and severe animal suffering and the death of thousands of animals as a result. COVID-19 has worsened the situation: animals are regularly stuck at borders, sometimes with more than a 12-hour delay.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Mcdonaldization
    Ritzer-ch01.qxd 1/22/02 11:05 AM Page 7 1 An Introduction to McDonaldization George Ritzer cDonald’s is the basis of one of the most influential developments in Mcontemporary society. Its reverberations extend far beyond its point of origin in the United States and in the fast-food business. It has influenced a wide range of undertakings, indeed the way of life, of a significant portion of the world. And that impact is likely to expand at an accelerating rate. However, this is not . about McDonald’s, or even about the fast-food business. Rather, McDonald’s serves here as the major example, the paradigm, of a wide-ranging process I call McDonaldization—that is, the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world. As you will see, McDonaldization affects not only the restaurant business but also . virtually every other aspect of society. McDonaldization has shown every sign of being an inexorable process, sweeping through seem- ingly impervious institutions and regions of the world. Editor’s Note: Excerpts from “An Introduction to McDonaldization,” pp. 1–19 in The McDonaldization of Society, 3rd ed., by George Ritzer. Copyright © 2000, Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA. Used with permission. 7 Ritzer-ch01.qxd 1/22/02 11:05 AM Page 8 8 Basics, Studies, Applications, and Extensions The success of McDonald’s itself is apparent. “There are McDonald’s everywhere. There’s one near you, and there’s one being built right now even nearer to you.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Hamburgers Michael Dickens
    History of Hamburgers The hamburger is known today as one of the staples of American cuisine but, it has a long history outside the United States. The dish traveled far and evolved over time to become what we know today as the hamburger. 1200: A Meal for Soldiers The Hamburger’s journey starts in Mongolia where Mongol warriors, being constantly on the move, would stuff scraps of meat M o n g o l i a underneath their horse saddles. The meat would be tenderized by the friction between the horse and the saddle. 1238 w co os M Mongolia After the Mogols, under Kublai Khan invaded Moscow, the Russians Moscow adopted this ground meat dish and called it “steak tartare”. Tartare is the name given to the Mongols by the Russians. 1600 It was around this century when minced beef dishes like steak tartare became a delacacy across Europe, with some countries adding their own touch making the beef into sausages. Moscow Hamburg Through maritime trade, steak tartare g r u made its way to the ports of Hamburg, b m Germany and was renamed “Tartare a H Steak” 1700: America Bound In the 18th century when steak tartare made its way to America One of the largest ports in all of Europe was in Hamburg, so it made sense for American settlers to trade resources. Sailors from New York brought tartare steak back, and gave it a new name: “Hamburg steak”. German immigrants also brought along a version of Hamburg steak. This version had shreds of low grade g New York r beef flavored with spices.
    [Show full text]
  • An Opportunity Lost: the United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 49 Issue 3 Article 4 4-1997 An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law Douglas W. Vick University of Stirling Linda Macpherson Heriot-Watt University Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the European Law Commons Recommended Citation Vick, Douglas W. and Macpherson, Linda (1997) "An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 49 : Iss. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol49/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law Douglas W. Vick* Linda Macpherson** INTRODUCTION ..................................... 621 I. BACKGROUND OF THE ACT ....................... 624 I. THE DEFAMATION ACT 1996 ...................... 629 A. The New Defenses ......................... 630 B. The ProceduralReforms ..................... 636 C. Waiving ParliamentaryPrivilege ............... 643 III. AN OPPORTUNITY LOST ......................... 646 CONCLUSION ....................................... 652 INTRODUCTION The law of defamation in the United Kingdom remains
    [Show full text]
  • The Anticruelty Statute: a Study in Animal Welfare Darian M
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2006 The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare Darian M. Ibrahim William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Ibrahim, Darian M., "The Anticruelty Statute: A Study in Animal Welfare" (2006). Faculty Publications. 1680. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1680 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE: A STUDY IN ANIMAL WELFARE DARIAN M. IBRAHIM* IN TRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 175 I. ANIMAL RIGHTS, ANIMAL WELFARE, AND THE CONCEPT OF HUMANE EXPLOITATION ................................................................. 177 II. LEGISLATURES, SOCIETAL TENSION, AND THE INEFFECTIVE ANTICRUELTY STATUTE .................................................................. 179 A . The A nticruelty Statute ............................................................. 179 B. Understanding Anticruelty Statute Exemptions ........................ 182 1. Societal Preference ............................................................. 182 2. Legislative C apture ............................................................ 184 3. Animals as Legal Property ................................................. 187 4. Efficiency and Competency ............................................... 187 C.
    [Show full text]
  • City Research Online
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: O'Callaghan, O. (2017). Privacy and a free press: locating the public interest. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/17858/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] PRIVACY AND A FREE PRESS: LOCATING THE PUBLIC INTEREST Exploring the balance between Article 8 and Article 10 rights in a modern media context Oliver O’Callaghan PhD Candidate CITY UNIVERSITY, LONDON LAW SCHOOL JUNE 2017 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Cases (UK) vi Table of Cases (ECHR) viii Table of Cases (USA) ix Table of Cases (Other) x Table of Legislation xi Acknowledgement xii Abstract xiii Part One: Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Introduction & Methodology 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Methodology 3 Part Two: Privacy and Article 8 5 Chapter 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A4ID Online Defamation Training Transcript
    A4ID Online Defamation Training Transcript CONTENTS Module 1 – Introduction to Defamation ........................................................................... 2 Module 2: Defamatory Meaning ...................................................................................... 9 Module 3: Defences ...................................................................................................... 10 Module 4: Avoiding defamation claims .......................................................................... 16 Module 5: Responding to complaints or claims ............................................................. 19 - 1 - Module 1 – Introduction to Defamation Module 1a: Introduction Covers the law of defamation in England & Wales Seek local advice when working or writing about people elsewhere Other relevant areas of law, e.g. privacy and data protection Hello, my name is Guy Vassall-Adams QC of Matrix Chambers in London. This online course provides an introduction to defamation - the area of law which protects reputation. This course was designed for NGOs and campaigning organisations that face the risk of being sued for defamation as a result of their publications. However, substantially the same risks arise for all publishers - people who communicate information to the general public - whether as campaigners, journalists or citizen bloggers. This course is therefore relevant to many different types of publisher. It aims to give you an awareness of the risks of defamation that can arise in your work and general advice
    [Show full text]