A question Re libel

Freelancer

Hypothetically. If an article in a newspapers makes an insinuation against people involved in a specific event, and furthermore details a specific aspect of that event, though names are not mentioned, could a person who was there, was involved in the specific detail (mentioned in the article) of the event, can this individual sue for libel.

The event is well known in society, though the individuals roll in the event is not.

I merely ask because libel seems to be about "lowering the standing of someone in the eyes of right thinking society" so if a person played a specific but not generally known role in a major event, to which a newspaper make an insinuation against, does this person have a legal right (or more importantly, a chance to succeed in legal action)

hullaballoo

There would appear to be a heading in most tort text books called "innuendo" which covers this sort of thing. I'd imagine that pretty much any insinuation that could be linked to a specific person would be covered by the law alright.

NUTLEY BOY

A lot depends on precisely what impression or message was conveyed.

Context has a lot to do with it.

Something to be remembered is that if a statement (expressed or implied) has a defamatory character that does not mean that there is a valid basis for a defamation action. There are numerous defences open to publishers of such statements such as justification, fair comment, truthfulness and so on.

People can sometimes feel very offended, outraged or hurt by comments about them but that does not make a publication defamatory.

Freelancer

The suggestion is that the victims of a crime had in some manner (not defined) "arranged" or "stagemanaged' events to appear to be the victim. No evidence is offered to support this allegation. It also suggests that video evidence of the crime was also fabricated, again it offers no proof to support this.

Nike_Dude

It would need to be possible for the person in question to be 'linked' with the article. e.g. if there was an article that was defamatory to a specific group , a person in that group could only sue for defamation if people reading the story could connect him with that group.
also innuendo is a valid target for defamation actions and as long as you can show evidence that people took the article to mean something defamatory then you are ok on that aspect.
The defences available may cause more of a problem depending on the circumstances. The is certainly a move in Ireland to give the newspapers a wider discretion to print stories without the fear of being bankrupted if it turns out to be false. (this only really applies to broadsheets who are reporting on matters of public importance and not tabloids reporting on things like celebrities going into rehab etc.)

From what you said it looks like the sort of thing that could be defamatory, (provided no defences, can be linked to a person etc) however its really difficult to judge how these sort of things play out in front of a jury.

According to McMahon and Binchy 'if a defamatory statement is made about a class of persons, then whether one of the class can sue depends on the size of the class and whether the plaintiff can point to facts which show that he was particularly referred to. In some cases of course this may oblige him to plead an innuendo'.

Think the big case at the moment would be Ashley Cole suing some tabloid for making certain claims regarding a member of the Arsenal squad. Is the Arsenal squad a small or big 'class' of persons? Was there sufficient inuendo that it was Arsenal at all or that it was Arsenal players or those Arsenal players who were defenders etc. etc.

Thirdfox

Saying something like "All lawyers are evil, idiotic, corrupt, *******" is not defamatory... the more specific you are the more likely you can be sued (especially if you are bad mouthing lawyers lol!). But where the line lies in regards to how specific is "specific" is still undefined...

Think there was a case involving some reference to a priest in some town like Dungarvan a few years back. Though not the main thrust of the case, think it was mentioned that each either or any of them could sue for defamation as the class of persons was sufficiently small...

Victor

Thirdfox wrote:

Saying something like "All lawyers are evil, idiotic, corrupt, *******" is not defamatory...

... because its true!

Thirdfox wrote:

But where the line lies in regards to how specific is "specific" is still undefined...

I contend that line is where the target is actually harmed.

If I say something that actually harms you (more than your feelings ) and I am wrong, then you should have some recompense.

Ian147100

McGonigle's book on Media Law in Ireland has an excellent chapter on defamation, I would urge anyone interested in this area to read it, it's very comprehensive and covers all the situations raised here.

Thirdfox

In relation to Victor's post... what if someone hears that all lawyers are evil from a newspaper and refuses to have any dealings with them anymore. Could a lawyer directly harmed (in a business sense) sue the newspaper then?

Victor

Thirdfox wrote:

In relation to Victor's post... what if someone hears that all lawyers are evil from a newspaper and refuses to have any dealings with them anymore. Could a lawyer directly harmed (in a business sense) sue the newspaper then?

The section of the market closed off to lawyers would be too narrow and the amount of lawyers it is shared by is too large to be actionable.