Satire and Irish Libel Law

Merry Prankster

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could point me to the relevant legislation regarding satire and Irish libel law. I'm thinking of starting a satirical website and would like to know what legal protection is afforded to satire.

P.S. Does the blasphemy law mean religion is off-limits? (Pretty shocking if that's the case).

Cheers for any help.

Procrastastudy

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/index.html

Part V for God bashing. Not sure about the satire point.

ResearchWill

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Hey everyone,

I was wondering if anyone could point me to the relevant legislation regarding satire and Irish libel law. I'm thinking of starting a satirical website and would like to know what legal protection is afforded to satire.

P.S. Does the blasphemy law mean religion is off-limits? (Pretty shocking if that's the case).

Cheers for any help.

This report pre dates the new Act but deals with your issue at page 62 http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDefamation.htm

Satire may or may not be a defence it will very much depend on the circumstances.

Blasphemy law well in reality no one knows as there has been no cases yet, there is a belief it is an unworkable law, but time will tell.

The case of Clark v Associated Newspapers 1998 1 WLR 1558, may be of help to put it simply the Evening Standard published diaries of Alan Clark they had been written by another author of a satirical nature, but it looked like the diaries had in fact been written by Clark. While the case was more properly passing off the court made if clear that the diaries could continue to be published as long as it was clear the plaintiff was not the author and the author was clearly identified.

Merry Prankster

ResearchWill wrote: »

This report pre dates the new Act but deals with your issue at page 62 http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDefamation.htm

Satire may or may not be a defence it will very much depend on the circumstances.

From the Defamation document:

In the Consultation Paper, we had mentioned the possibility of incorporating in the definition of defamation a provision that “matter which would reasonably be understood as satire is not defamatory”. We had, however, expressed doubts as to whether such a proposal is really practicable, in view of the difficulty in securing agreement as to what constitutes “satire” as distinct from scurrility...We accordingly recommend that there should be no special provision in relation to such material.

So I take it this means there is scant protection and a sizeable, yet ultimately unkowable, risk involved?

P.S. Cheers for the help all.

ResearchWill

Merry Prankster wrote: »

From the Defamation document:



So I take it this means there is scant protection and a sizeable, yet ultimately unkowable, risk involved?

P.S. Cheers for the help all.

Pretty much, it really is one of those legal points that will be decided on the specific facts of each case, put simply one mans satire is another's defamation.

Merry Prankster

ResearchWill wrote: »

Pretty much, it really is one of those legal points that will be decided on the specific facts of each case, put simply one mans satire is another's defamation.

Well, I guess it's probably academic unless the website becomes fabulously successful and popular! I would have thought that it'd be pretty bad PR for a public figure or company to take action against one man and his little satirical website - they'd be viewed as humourless bullies and they'd inadvertently draw much greater attention to the 'offending' piece.

valleyoftheunos

Be careful, many large corporations and high profile people have a policy of going after anyone who the believe has defamed them. Having a humour isn't usually high on their list of priorities.

The best way to look at it is that you shouldn't say anything untrue about someone who is identifiable in your work. Satire shouldn't be defamatory although it can be close:D.