Tag Archives: defamation

March 15, 2021 · 9:36 am

Social media law resources for professional communicators

Colleague Susan Grantham and I have written a new book – Social Media Risk and the Law: A Guide for Global Communicators – now in production for publication by Routledge later this year.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

We offer professional communicators strategies for taking advantage of social media while also navigating the ethical, legal, and organisational risks that can lead to audience outrage, brand damage, expensive litigation and communication crises.

We take a global approach to risk and social media law, drawing on case studies from key international jurisdictions to explain and illustrate the basic principles.

Of course, an international approach means we need to direct readers to more detailed information about social media laws in their own jurisdictions. We encountered many resources for this purpose along the way, and offer this compilation as a starting point for social media managers wanting to learn more …

Social media law resources for professional communicators – a starting point

Here are some starting points for further information about the main social media law topics covered in our book – Grantham, S. and Pearson, M. (2021, forthcoming). Social Media Risk and the Law: A Guide for Global Communicators. Routledge: Oxon and NY. Topics covered include general information, news, human rights and free expression, cases, business and corporate laws, crime and justice, defamation, intellectual property and privacy/confidentiality. [Thanks to inforrm.org for some useful suggestions. Many more media law blogs and UK resources are listed there.]

International

General, miscellaneous and news

Guardian media law blog – https://www.theguardian.com/media/medialaw

International Forum for Responsible Media blog – https://inforrm.org/

Shear on Social Media Law – https://www.shearsocialmedia.com/media_opportunities

Human rights and free expression

Universal Declaration of Human Rights – https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Article 19 – article19.org

Reporters Without Borders – https://rsf.org/en

IFEX – International Free Expression – https://ifex.org/

Index on Censorship – https://www.indexoncensorship.org/

Transparency International – https://www.transparency.org/en

Media Defence – https://www.mediadefence.org/about/

Cases and news

World Legal Information Institute – http://www.worldlii.org/countries.html

Business laws and regulators

International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN) – https://icpen.org/

Consumers International – https://www.consumersinternational.org/

International consumer protection agencies – https://www.ftc.gov/policy/international/competition-consumer-protection-authorities-worldwide

List of securities regulators internationally – https://www.iosco.org/about/?subsection=membership&memid=1

Crime and justice

UN Global Programme on Cybercrime – https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/cybercrime/global-programme-cybercrime.html

Defamation

International Press Institute – International Standards on Criminal and Civil Defamation Laws – http://legaldb.freemedia.at/international-standards/

Intellectual property

World Intellectual Property Organisation – https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/index.html

Directory of intellectual property offices – https://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

Privacy and confidentiality

Global Privacy Enforcement Network – https://www.privacyenforcement.net/

International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) – https://iapp.org/

Africa

General and miscellaneous

Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) – https://cipesa.org/

Human rights and free expression

African Freedom of Expression Exchange (AFEX) – https://www.africafex.org/

African Union – Democracy, Law and Human Rights – https://au.int/en/democracy-law-human-rights

Freedom of Expression Institute – http://www.fxi.org.za/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,36/

Case law databases

African case law databases – http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/gen_region.pl?region=250

African Legal Information Institute – https://africanlii.org/

Veritas Zimbabwe – http://www.veritaszim.net/

Business laws and regulators

National Consumer Commission (South Africa) – https://www.thencc.gov.za/

Financial Sector Conduct Authority – https://www.fsca.co.za/

Crime and justice

Institute for Security Studies – https://issafrica.org/

International Justice Resource Centre – Africa – https://ijrcenter.org/regional/african/

Defamation

INFORRM – South Africa – https://inforrm.org/category/south-africa/

Intellectual property

Department of Deeds Companies and Intellectual Property (Zimbabwe) – http://www.dcip.gov.zw/

Privacy and confidentiality

Data Protection Africa – https://dataprotection.africa/

Asia-Pacific

General and miscellaneous

Asian Media Information and Communication Centre (AMIC) – https://amic.asia/

Pacific Media Watch – https://pmc.aut.ac.nz/profile/pacific-media-watch

Asian Law Network Blog – https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/

Law and Other Things blog (India) – https://lawandotherthings.com/

Human rights and free expression

Free Speech in China – http://blog.feichangdao.com/

Case law databases

Asian case law (WorldLII) – http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/gen_region.pl?region=2647

Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute – http://www.paclii.org/index.shtml

Business laws and regulators

The ASEAN Committee on Consumer Protection (ACCP) – https://aseanconsumer.org/

Singapore Competition and Consumer Commission – https://www.cccs.gov.sg/

Asia Law Network Blog – Consumer Law – https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/cat/personal/consumer-law/

Crime and justice

International Justice Resource Centre – Asia – https://ijrcenter.org/regional/asia/

Asia Law Network Blog – Criminal and Litigation – https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/cat/personal/criminal-and-litigation/

Netmission.asia – https://netmission.asia/

Defamation

Asia Law Network Blog – Defamation – https://learn.asialawnetwork.com/cat/personal/defamation/

Slater and Gordon – Destination Defamation, South-East Asia – https://www.slatergordon.com.au/blog/business-law/destination-defamation-south-east-asia

Intellectual property

Intellectual Property Office of Singapore – http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/home

Privacy and confidentiality

Asia Pacific Data Protection and Cyber Security Guide 2020 – https://iapp.org/resources/article/311636/

Australia

General and miscellaneous

Communications and Media Law Association – https://www.camla.org.au/

Gazette of Law and Journalism – https://glj.com.au/

Professor Mark Pearson’s blog – www.journlaw.com

Human rights and free expression

Australian Human Rights Commission – Social Media – https://humanrights.gov.au/quick-guide/12098

MEAA media freedom reports – https://www.meaa.org/category/mediaroom/reports/

Case law databases

Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) – http://www.austlii.edu.au/

Federal Register of Legislation – https://www.legislation.gov.au/

Business laws and regulators

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – Social Media – https://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-promoting-your-business/social-media

Australian Communications and Media Authority – https://www.acma.gov.au/

Australian Securities and Investments Commission – https://asic.gov.au/

Law Society of NSW – Guidelines on Social Media Policies – https://www.lawsociety.com.au/resources/resources/my-practice-area/legal-technology/guidelines-social-media

Fair Work Commission – https://www.fwc.gov.au/

Crime and justice

High Court of Australia – www.hcourt.gov.au

Australian Attorney-General’s Department – Courts – https://www.ag.gov.au/legal-system/courts

The Australian Constitution – https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/

Defamation

Defamation Watch (Justin Castelan) – http://defamationwatch.com.au/about/

Intellectual property

Australian Copyright Council – https://www.copyright.org.au/

IP Australia – https://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/

Privacy and confidentiality

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner – Social Media Privacy – https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/your-privacy-rights/social-media-and-online-privacy/

Australian Privacy Foundation – https://privacy.org.au/

Canada

General and miscellaneous

Department of Justice – Canada’s System of Justice – https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/index.html

Canadian Bar Association – https://www.cba.org/Home

Legal Line Canada – https://www.legalline.ca/

Human rights and free expression

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/index.html

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression – https://www.cjfe.org/

Case law databases

Canadian case law (WorldLII) – http://www.worldlii.org/catalog/51528.html

Supreme Court of Canada – https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/index-eng.aspx

Canadian Media Lawyers Association – https://canadianmedialawyers.com/

Business laws and regulators

Canadian Advertising and Marketing Law – http://www.canadianadvertisinglaw.com/

Office of Consumer Affairs – http://consumer.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/home

Canadian Bar Association – Social Media Policies in the Workplace – https://www.cba.org/Publications-Resources/CBA-Practice-Link/2015/2014/Social-media-policies-in-the-workplace-What-works

Canadian Securities Administrators – https://www.securities-administrators.ca/

Crime and justice

Supreme Court of Canada – https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx

Media Smarts – Online Hate and Canadian Law – https://mediasmarts.ca/digital-media-literacy/digital-issues/online-hate/online-hate-canadian-law

The Court.ca – blog on Canadian Supreme Court – http://www.thecourt.ca/

Defamation

Mondaq Canada – A Primer on Defamation – https://www.mondaq.com/canada/libel-defamation/725558/a-primer-on-defamation

Intellectual property

Canadian Intellectual Property Office – http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/home

Privacy and confidentiality

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada – https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/

Privacy Canada – https://privacycanada.net/

David T.S. Fraser’s Privacy Law Resources – http://privacylawyer.ca/

Europe (see below for UK)

General and miscellaneous

Droit de technologies (France) – https://cours-de-droit.net/droit-des-ntic-droit-des-nouvelles-technologies-de-l-information-et-de-a121602690/

Human rights and free expression

ECHR blog – https://www.echrblog.com/

The Irish for Rights – http://www.cearta.ie/

Case law databases

Eastern Europe case law (WorldLII) – http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/gen_region.pl?region=2210

Western Europe case law (WorldLII) – http://www.worldlii.org/cgi-bin/gen_region.pl?region=251

Business laws and regulators

European Consumer Centre Network (ECC-Net) – https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/resolve-your-consumer-complaint/european-consumer-centres-network-ecc-net_en

Citizens Advice – https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/

Crime and justice

European Justice – Courts – https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_eu_courts-15-en.do

Court of Justice of the European Union – https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en

Defamation

Council of Europe – Defamation – https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/defamation

Czech Defamation Law – https://czechdefamationlaw.wordpress.com/

Intellectual property

European Commission – Intellectual Property Rights – https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/intellectual-property-rights_en

Manual on European Defamation Law – Media Defence – https://www.mediadefence.org/resources/manual-on-european-defamation-law/

Privacy and confidentiality

General Data Protection Regulation – EU – https://gdpr.eu/

Europe Data Protection Digest – https://iapp.org/news/europe-data-protection-digest/

New Zealand

General and miscellaneous

Ministry of Justice – Harmful digital communications – https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/civil/harmful-digital-communications/

NZ Law Society – Social media’s legal criteria – https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/news/lawtalk/issue-812/social-medias-legal-criteria/

Human rights and free expression

NZ Government – Human rights in NZ – https://www.govt.nz/browse/law-crime-and-justice/human-rights-in-nz/

Human Rights Commission – https://www.hrc.co.nz/

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html

Case law databases

New Zealand Legislation – https://www.legislation.govt.nz/

New Zealand Legal Information Institute Databases – http://www.nzlii.org/databases.html

Courts of NZ Judgments – https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/judgments

Business laws and regulators

Commerce Commission – https://comcom.govt.nz/

Consumer Protection – Online safety laws and rules – https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/online-safety-laws-and-rules/

Crime and justice

Ministry of Justice – Courts – https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/

Courts of NZ – https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/

Defamation

Defamation Update NZ – https://defamationupdate.co.nz/

Intellectual property

NZ Intellectual Property Office – https://www.iponz.govt.nz/

Privacy and confidentiality

Office of the Privacy Commissioner – https://www.privacy.org.nz/

Ministry of Justice – Key Initiatives – Privacy – https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/privacy/

Privacy Foundation NZ – https://www.privacyfoundation.nz/

South America

General and miscellaneous

Marco Civil Law of the Internet in Brazil – https://www.cgi.br/pagina/marco-civil-law-of-the-internet-in-brazil/180

Human rights and free expression

American Convention on Human Rights – Article 13 – http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=25&lID=1

Article 19 – Brazil and South America regional office – https://www.article19.org/regional-office/brazil-and-south-america/

Case law databases

Legal Information Institute – World legal materials from South America – https://www.law.cornell.edu/world/samerica

Business laws and regulators

OECD – Corporate Governance in Latin America – https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceinlatinamerica.htm

Crime and justice

Legal Information Institute – World legal materials from South America – https://www.law.cornell.edu/world/samerica

Wilson Center – The Brazilian Judicial System – https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-brazilian-judicial-system

Defamation

Committee to Protect Journalists – Criminal Defamation Laws in South America – https://cpj.org/reports/2016/03/south-america/

Intellectual property

BizLatin Hub – Overview – Intellectual Property Regulations in Latin America – https://www.bizlatinhub.com/overview-intellectual-property-regulations-latin-america/

Intellectual Property Magazine – South America – https://www.intellectualpropertymagazine.com/world/south_america/

Privacy and confidentiality

Bloomberg BNA – Privacy Law in Latin America and the Caribbean (Cynthia Rich) – https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/Privacy_Laws_Latin_America.pdf

United Kingdom

General and miscellaneous

International Forum for Responsible Media blog – https://inforrm.org/

Brett Wilson Media Law blog – http://www.brettwilson.co.uk/blog/category/media-law/

Information Law and Policy Centre – https://infolawcentre.blogs.sas.ac.uk/

Human rights and free expression

Transparency Project – http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/blog/

Case law databases

British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) – https://www.bailii.org/

Business laws and regulators

Competition and Markets Authority – https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority

ACAS – Unfair Dismissal – https://www.acas.org.uk/dismissals/unfair-dismissal

Financial Conduct Authority – https://www.fca.org.uk/

Crime and justice

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary – Structure of the courts and tribunal system – https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-structure/

The Supreme Court – https://www.supremecourt.uk/

Defamation

BBC News – Defamation cases – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cxwke9d43kkt/defamation-cases

Scandalous blog – https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/services/dispute-resolution/defamation-and-privacy/defamation-blog

Carruthers Law – Defamation definitions – https://www.carruthers-law.co.uk/our-services/defamation/defamation-definitions/

Intellectual property

UK Intellectual Property Office – http://www.ipo.gov.uk/

UK Copyright Service – https://copyrightservice.co.uk/

Privacy and confidentiality

Gov.UK – Data Protection – https://www.gov.uk/data-protection

Information Commissioner’s Office – https://ico.org.uk/

United States

General and miscellaneous

Social Media Law Bulletin – https://www.socialmedialawbulletin.com/

HG.org Law and Social Media – https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/the-law-and-social-media-31695

Technology and Marketing Law Blog – Eric Goldman – https://blog.ericgoldman.org/

Human rights and free expression

Center for Internet and Society (Stanford University) – http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/

Committee to Protect Journalists – cpj.org

US Courts – What does free speech mean? – https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does

Freedom Forum Institute, First Amendment Center – https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/

Case law databases

US case law (WorldLII) – http://www.worldlii.org/us/

Justia US law – https://law.justia.com/

Legal Information Institute – Cornell University – https://www.law.cornell.edu/

Internet cases – Evan Law blog – http://evan.law/blog/

Business laws and regulators

Federal Trade Commission – https://www.ftc.gov/

US Department of Health and Human Services – Social media policies – https://www.hhs.gov/web/social-media/policies/index.html

US State Consumer Protection Offices – https://www.usa.gov/state-consumer

Crime and justice

Supreme Court of the United States – https://www.supremecourt.gov/

United States Courts – https://www.uscourts.gov/

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency – https://www.cisa.gov/cybersecurity

Homeland Security – Cybersecurity – https://www.dhs.gov/topic/cybersecurity

Defamation

Legal Information Institute – Defamation – https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

Freedom Forum Institute – Quick guide to libel law – https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/primers/libellaw/

Intellectual property

US Copyright Office – https://www.copyright.gov/

US Patent and Trademark Office – https://www.uspto.gov/

Privacy and confidentiality

Data protection law – HG.org – https://www.hg.org/data-protection.html

US Department of State – Privacy Office – https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-management/bureau-of-administration/privacy-office/

If you are a communication professional wanting to study in this area, please consider enrolling in our online courses Social Media Law and Risk Management (postgraduate) or Media Law (undergraduate).

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

© Mark Pearson and Susan Grantham 2021 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under censorship, communication, defamation, First Amendment, free expression, intellectual property, Internet, journalism, journalism education, libel, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, media literacy, Media regulation, national security, open justice, Press freedom, Privacy, public relations, reflective practice, risk, risk management, social media, sub judice, suppression

Tagged as Australian media, communication education, communication law, defamation, free expression, freedom to communicate, international law, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, privacy, risk management, social media, social media law, social media risk, social media risk and law, susan grantham

January 12, 2021 · 10:05 am

Legal risks of Facebook comments

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Social media offers countless benefits to organisations, but an emerging legal risk is prompting many communication professionals to reassess their exposure.

Several superior court cases in Australia and internationally have decided that hosts of Facebook pages must bear responsibility for defamatory comments posted to their sites by other people.

The latest – involving Australian indigenous activist and former juvenile detainee Dylan Voller – has left major news organisations potentially liable in his defamation action over comments posted in response to articles about him on their corporate Facebook sites.

For the full article on this topic, please go to the Griffith University Thought Leadership series of articles.

© Mark Pearson 2021 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under free expression, journalism, journalism education, libel, Media freedom, media law, Media regulation, Press freedom, Privacy, reflective practice, social media

Tagged as Australian media, defamation, free expression, freedom to communicate, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, privacy

October 13, 2020 · 1:58 pm

Our chapter in Comparative Privacy and Defamation

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Colleague Virginia Leighton-Jackson and I teamed up to write a chapter on Australian defamation and privacy law in the newly released book Comparative Privacy and Defamation from Edward Elgar Publishing.

The book [ ISBN: 978 1 78897 058 7; 480pp ] forms part of the Research Handbooks in Comparative Law series and is edited by András Koltay (Professor of Law, National University of Public Service and Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Hungary) and Paul Wragg (Associate Professor of Law, University of Leeds).

It provides comparative analysis that examines both Western and non-Western legal systems, and offers commentary on issues of theory and doctrine, including the impacts of privacy restrictions, defamation reforms and new technologies on the law.

Our chapter (pp 381-398) is titled ‘Privacy and defamation in Australia – a post-colonial tango’.

It considers defamation and privacy law in its uniquely Australian context, where statutory and case law have evolved without explicit protections of free expression in its Constitution.

After offering an Australian constitutional, legislative and common law context, our chapter surveys the laws of defamation and privacy since English colonial settlement in the late eighteenth century.

Emphasis in the discussion of defamation is upon its relationship with privacy through various statutory iterations of the truth/justification defence which has at times featured privacy protections.

The focus of the survey of privacy law is the story of reform momentum over four decades towards an actionable tort for the serious invasion of privacy, which remains unfulfilled.

The chapter explains how this has impacted on celebrity plaintiffs’ preference for defamation when the media has scrutinised their private lives.

The case law and statutory and regulatory dimensions of both defamation and privacy are covered, with the chapter comparing and contrasting Australian defamation and privacy law with some key aspects of that jurisprudence in the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK).

© Mark Pearson 2020 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

Leave a comment

Filed under free expression, journalism, journalism education, libel, Media freedom, media law, Media regulation, Press freedom, Privacy, reflective practice, social media

Tagged as Australian media, defamation, free expression, freedom to communicate, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, privacy

February 26, 2020 · 11:02 am

Five media law essentials for journalists, publishers and students #MLGriff #auspol #medialaw #auslaw

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Much has happened in the field of media and social media law, even since the sixth edition of our Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Pearson & Polden) was published in 2019.

As media law students start their academic year at Australian institutions, this calls for a quick update of the five most important risks facing journalists in the digital era.

Defamation: Reforms to Australian defamation laws appear imminent, but the basic principles will remain the same. Pause before publishing anything criticising or ridiculing anyone and consider your language, evidence base, intended meaning, motivation and working knowledge of the defences available to you. If in doubt, seek legal advice. If you can’t afford that advice, then modify the material or leave it out – unless you have considerable defamation insurance. Society needs robust journalism, but remember it can also need deep pockets to defend it. The 2019 case of Voller v. Nationwide News underscores the decision in Allergy Pathway almost a decade ago: publishers may be responsible for the comments of others on their social media sites, particularly when posting articles on inflammatory topics or people. Ashurst law firm has produced a useful flow-chart to explain the steps a publisher should take to minimise the risks of liability for comments by third parties on their social media sites.
High profile trials: Regardless of the fate of the 30 journalists and news organisations still facing contempt action over their reporting of last year’s trial of Cardinal George Pell, the episode reinforces the dangers facing those reporting and commenting upon major court matters. As we show in our crime reporting time zones flowchart in our text, a criminal case involves an interplay of risks including defamation, contempt and other restrictions. Courts and prosecutors take suppression orders seriously, so it is wise to pause to reflect and to take legal advice when navigating this territory.
National security risks: Many of the 70-plus anti-terror laws passed in Australia since 2001 impact on journalists, with jail terms a real risk for those reporting on special intelligence operations, ASIO, suppressed trials, and any matter using insider government sources, along with a host of other risks as identified by Australia’s Right To Know’s submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in 2019. The laws present a minefield for journalists covering national security, defence, immigration and related topics. It is a specialist field requiring a close familiarity with the numerous laws.
Breach of confidence: Journalists are reluctant to reveal their own confidential sources, but they are keen to tell the secrets of others – particularly if matters of public interest are being covered up. Actions for breach of confidence allow individuals and corporations to seek injunctions to prevent their dirty linen being aired. Further, the Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended a new action of serious invasion of privacy and the future development of the action for breach of confidence with compensation for emotional distress. The Parliament has not yet embraced the proposal but judge-made law on privacy and confidentiality remains a possibility.
Compromising sources: The journalist-source relationship is one where the journalist’s ethical obligation to preserve confidentiality is threatened by a number of laws. Most Australian jurisdictions now have shield laws giving judges a discretion to excuse a journalist from revealing a source after weighing up various public interest factors. This is far from a watertight protection and journalists face potential jail terms for ‘disobedience contempt’ for refusing a court order to reveal a source or hand over materials. Further, as two ABC journalists and News Corporation’s Annika Smethurst discovered last year, journalists can also face criminal charges for just handling or publishing confidential or classified materials given to them by whistleblowers, even if the matter relates to an important matter of public interest. The validity of the warrants to raid them over ‘dishonestly receiving stolen property’ (Commonwealth documents) was upheld by a Federal Court earlier this year, despite a range of arguments including shield laws and the constitutional implied freedom to communicate on political matters. Such action, combined with the far-reaching powers of authorities to access communications metadata and the proliferation of public CCTV footage presents huge challenges to journalists trying to keep their whistleblower sources secret. It is one thing to promise confidentiality to a source, but quite another to be able to honour that promise given modern surveillance technologies and the legal reach of agencies.

© Mark Pearson 2020 – the moral right of the author has been asserted.

2 Comments

Filed under censorship, contempt of court, courts, First Amendment, free expression, journalism, journalism education, media ethics, Media freedom, media law, Media regulation, mindful journalism, national security, open justice, Press freedom, Privacy, reflective practice, social media, sub judice, suppression, terrorism

Tagged as ABC, Annika Smethurst, ASIO, Australian media, contempt of court, defamation, free expression, freedom to communicate, gags, journalism, journalism education, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, national security, News Corporation, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, press freedom, surveillance, Voller v. Nationwide News

October 25, 2019 · 11:56 am

A mindful approach to introducing defamation to students #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

Colleagues from Griffith University gathered for a celebration of teaching and learning this week and I had the honour of presenting an open class session.

The forum was called ‘Teaching Using Engaging and Empowering Pedagogies’ and my class was titled ‘Practising mindfulness in the tertiary classroom’.

It was an attempt at putting into practice some of the research we have been undertaking in this space in recent years.

For the research underpinning it, please see:

Pearson, M., McMahon, C., O’Donovan, A. and O’Shannessy, D. (2019), ‘Building journalists’ resilience through mindfulness strategies’. Journalism. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464884919833253

Pearson, M., McMahon, C., and O’Donovan, A. (2018) ‘Potential benefits of teaching mindfulness to journalism students’. Asia Pacific Media Educator (December). 28:2: https://doi.org/10.1177/1326365X18800080

You should get the gist of the mindfulness-based activities involved from the slide show captured below.

Enjoy.

Leave a comment

Filed under defamation, Eightfold Path, journalism, journalism education, media ethics, media law, mindful journalism, online education, reflective practice, social media

Tagged as defamation, emotion, ethics, free expression, freedom to communicate, interventions, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, law, mark pearson, media, media law, meditation, mindful journalism, mindful teaching, mindfulness, mindfulness pedagogy, professional values, reflective practice, teaching and learning, trauma

June 5, 2019 · 11:36 am

Rare criminal defamation charge in Queensland – #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

QUEENSLAND police have charged a Sunshine Coast man with criminal defamation under a rarely used provision of the Criminal Code 1899.

They will allege he distributed pamphlets to neighbourhood homes claiming a former associate was a paedophile.

As Lord Denning, in the 1977 Goldsmith case, said, ‘A criminal libel is so serious that the offender should be punished for it by the state itself. He should either be sent to prison or made to pay a fine to the state itself’ (at 485).

As we explain in the sixth edition of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Pearson and Polden, Allen & Unwin, 2019, pp 298-299), instances of criminal defamation usually arise between ordinary citizens rather than in the media.

Examples include the Wineries case (1998), where a disgruntled businessman penned a letter, purportedly from his business partner’s wife, in which she described her husband as someone who ‘engages in adultery, deception, taxation fraud and is a confidence trickster’ who could be ‘compared to the worst, most infectious, bacterial parasite which can only be found at the bottom of the most unhygienic sewage scum swamp’.

The man sent the letter to at least one South Australian winery and pleaded guilty to criminal defamation.

In 2001, a quadriplegic woman and her mother were charged with six counts of criminal defamation after they allegedly posted notices accusing townsfolk of perjuring themselves in her compensation claim against the local council and its swimming pool operators (Quadriplegic case, 2001). Police later dropped the charges.

Horse racing identities Robert and William Waterhouse prosecuted the producer and reporter of an ABC Four Corners program. The NSW Director of Public Prosecutions eventually stepped in to prevent the defamation prosecutions from proceeding because the defence of qualified privilege was going to be available (Waterhouse case, 1988).

The most famous instance in Australia was the politically motivated prosecution of leftist author Frank Hardy for criminal libel over his volcanic first novel Power Without Glory in August 1950, which he successfully defended.

Sadly, criminal defamation and seditious libel have often been used as political weapons against opposition groups and the media in many small Commonwealth countries.

For media law geeks, the Queensland legislation reads as follows:

—–

CRIMINAL CODE 1899 – SECT 365

Criminal defamation

365 Criminal defamation

(1) Any person who, without lawful excuse, publishes matter defamatory of another living person (the
“relevant person” )—

(a) knowing the matter to be false or without having regard to whether the matter is true or false; and

(b) intending to cause serious harm to the relevant person or any other person or without having regard to whether serious harm to the relevant person or any other person is caused;

commits a misdemeanour.

Penalty—

Maximum penalty—3 years imprisonment.

(2) In a proceeding for an offence defined in this section, the accused person has a lawful excuse for the publication of defamatory matter about the relevant person if, and only if, subsection (3) applies.

(3) This subsection applies if the accused person would, having regard only to the circumstances happening before or at the time of the publication, have had a relevant defencefor the publication if the relevant person had brought civil proceedings for defamation against the accused person.

(4) The prosecution has the burden of negativing the existence of a lawful excuse if, and only if, evidence directed to establishing the excuse is first adduced by or on behalf of the accused person.

(5) Whether the matter complained of is capable of bearing a defamatory meaning is a question of law.

(6) Whether the matter complained of does bear a defamatory meaning is a question of fact.

(7) A person can not be prosecuted for an offence defined in this section without the consent of the director of public prosecutions.

(8) In this section—
“defamatory” has the meaning that it has in the law of tort (as modified by the Defamation Act 2005 ) relating to defamation.
“modified statutory defence of justification” means the defence stated in the Defamation Act 2005 , section 25 as if that section provided that it is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that—

(a) the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the relevant person complains are substantially true; and

(b) it was for the public benefit that the publication should be made.

“publish” has the meaning that it has in the law of tort (as modified by the Defamation Act 2005 ) relating to defamation.
“relevant defence” means—

(a) a defence available under the Defamation Act 2005 other than—

(i) the statutory defence of justification; or

(ii) the statutory defence of failure to accept reasonable offer; or

(b) the modified statutory defence of justification; or

(c) a defence available other than under the Defamation Act 2005 , including under the general law.

“statutory defence of failure to accept reasonable offer” means the defence stated in the Defamation Act 2005 , section 18 (1) .
“statutory defence of justification” means the defence stated in the Defamation Act 2005 , section 25 .

JGML6eCOVERorange

Leave a comment

Filed under defamation, free expression, journalism, media law, Media regulation

Tagged as Australian media, criminal defamation, criminal libel, defamation, defamation defences, free expression, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, justification, law, mark pearson, media, media law, truth

September 20, 2018 · 11:35 am

Case study shows the legal pros and cons of a media release

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

MEDIA releases are meant to enhance brand reputation but they can sometimes have the reverse effect, as we explain in the forthcoming sixth edition of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Allen & Unwin, 2019).

JGML6eCOVERorange

We profile the Born Brands case (2013), where two media releases had vastly different consequences for the manufacturers of a device to help better position infants during sleep.

The first was particularly successful, generating a news segment on Brisbane Extra about its Babywedge product and an appearance on national morning television (Born Brands case, para. 8).

But the second media release—this time emanating from the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)—caused unexpected damage because it warned consumers against using infant sleep positioners.

Babywedge then featured on a Channel 9 news segment among other such products in a story about the potential dangers of infant sleep positioners (at para. 14).

As part of the fallout from the crisis, Born Brands sued the Nine Network for both defamation and injurious falsehood, claiming the news item damaged its reputation as a small corporation (fewer than 10 employees) and that it contained false statements, published with malice, which had caused it actual financial loss (injurious falsehood).

However, the company found no relief because the television network managed to defend both actions successfully, with the court finding the statements were not false and that no malice had been proven (paras 184–9).

—-

Like earlier editions, our text aims to give professional communicators and students a basic working understanding of the key areas of media law and ethical regulation likely to affect them in their research, writing and publishing across media platforms. It tries to do this by introducing the basic legal concepts while exploring the ways in which a professional communicator’s work practices can be adapted to withstand legal challenges.

If you wish to request a copy for course inspection or media review please contact the publisher, Allen & Unwin, who will have printed copies available from late November.

Leave a comment

Filed under defamation, free expression, journalism, media law, Media regulation, public relations

Tagged as Australian media, defamation, defamation defences, free expression, injurious falsehood, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, justification, law, mark pearson, media, media law, press freedom, press releases, public relations, public relations law, truth

September 4, 2018 · 10:49 am

Defending truth: case study from our new edition

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

DEFENDING a defamation action using the truth or justification defence can have its hurdles, but this case we profile in the forthcoming sixth edition of The Journalist’s Guide to Media Law (Allen & Unwin, 2019) demonstrates how a major publication used it effectively.

—-

The Vocational Education case

Charan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 3

Facts

In late 2015, The Australian newspaper published a print article (‘Watchdog Takes Peak Training College to Court’) and a similar online version (‘ACCC to Take Top Training College Phoenix Institute to Court’). The story was about proposed court action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against a vocational training college called Phoenix Institute owned by the publicly listed Australian Careers Network. The article mentioned earlier media reports that alleged Phoenix had sent sales staff into housing commission estates, pressuring potential students to join up, and stated that the parent company was under investigation by both the federal Department of Education and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) and that its shares had been suspended from trading on the stock exchange for the previous month. The article identified the plaintiff, Atkinson Prakash Charan, as one of the company’s heads and stated that he had amassed a $35 million fortune from the vocational education business. In short, it suggested that, ‘whilst under his management, VET organisations acted unscrupulously, in breach of regulatory standards, and that he made a large amount of money as a result of that conduct’ (para. 2). Mr Charan had in fact left the company about a year earlier and the next day The Australian published a correction to that effect in its print edition and later an online apology for the error.

Law

The plaintiff pleaded that eight imputations arose from the article, which the judge grouped into four headings (para. 27):

Mr Charan was head of ACN, a company that engaged in unscrupulous business practices that took advantage of vulnerable consumers.
Mr Charan was head of ACN, a company that engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
Mr Charan was head of ACN, which engaged in unscrupulous door-to-door marketing practices to vulnerable consumers.
Mr Charan [as head of] ACN carried on a business which was significantly non-compliant with quality standards.

The defendant, Nationwide News—publisher of The Australian—argued successfully that imputations 2 and 3 did not arise in the articles and defended the imputations of unscrupulous business practices and significant non-compliance with quality standards using the justification (truth) defence by proving that the imputations were substantially true as required under section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005. To prove the substantial truth of the unscrupulous conduct allegations, it had to convince the court under the civil burden of proof—the ‘balance of probabilities’—that there was ‘clear and cogent proof’. To do so, it drew upon a host of material obtained after the publication, including:

the oral testimony of a number of witnesses who had worked in the Community Training Initiatives (CTI) group
the oral testimony of three ‘students’ allegedly enrolled in CTI courses conducted by CTI companies
the contents of a series of audit reports, student interviews and file reviews (with associated documentation), carried out in 2015
a large number of emails and associated documents flowing to and from Mr Charan and other officers or employees of the CTI companies (para. 77).

The latter included records of phone calls and messages subpoenaed from Mr Charan’s telephone service provider, Telstra.

Justice Forrest found that the plaintiff was ‘was an entirely unreliable witness, not only on this issue but as to all matters relevant to his claim’ (para. 111). He concluded with a concise summary of his 768-paragraph judgment:

(a)   Mr Charan was defamed in both the written and online versions of the article;

(b) the article defamed him by conveying imputations that:

(1)       Mr Charan managed a VET organisation which engaged in unscrupulous business practices which took advantage of vulnerable consumers which resulted in him making a large amount of money; and

(2)       Mr Charan managed a VET organisation which was significantly non-compliant with quality standards

I am satisfied that Nationwide has established the substantial truth of both imputations (paras 762–3).

Lessons for professional communicators

Several lessons arise from this rare successful use of the justification (substantial truth) defence by a publisher:

Considerable evidence can be needed to prove the truth of imputations stemming from an article, and sometimes this has to be located after publication and before trial, although as much evidence as possible should be available at the time of publication;
A publisher defendant can still win a case on the pleaded imputations even if there is a basic error in the story—in this case, the fact that Mr Charan had not been formally involved with the management of the company for a year. (Of course, such errors should normally be avoided.)
Defamation cases can be enormously expensive. In this case, the 35-day trial was reported to have cost both sides more than $3.5 million in legal fees (Houston, Duke and Vedelago, 2018)

JGML6eCOVERorange

—-

If you wish to request a copy for course inspection or media review please contact the publisher, Allen & Unwin, who will have printed copies available from late November.

1 Comment

Filed under citizen journalism, defamation, free expression, journalism, media law, Media regulation

Tagged as Australian media, Charan, defamation, defamation defences, free expression, journalism, Journalist's guide to media law, justification, law, mark pearson, media, media law, press freedom, The Australian, truth

April 11, 2018 · 1:34 pm

Defamation research and social media mean it’s time to consider reform

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

The Sydney Morning Herald recently published my commentary welcoming the NSW Government’s rethink of defamation law in the light of recent research showing a large number of cases involve ordinary citizens (rather than celebrities) and social media posts (as distinct from media publications).

Social media gives people a wider audience for their bile – and defamation laws must reflect that https://t.co/BUm9gJZmgq via @smh #MLGriff

— Prof Mark Pearson (@JournLaw) April 11, 2018

It was titled ‘Social media gives people a wider audience for their bile – and defamation laws must reflect that’.

Here is the extended unedited version for those with a special interest:

The decision to review NSW defamation laws announced yesterday is overdue, and changes need to address several aspects of the legislation as well as the very human flaws of vindictive remarks, fragile egos and ignorance of the law.

NSW District Court defamation expert Judge Judith Gibson called for reform this week, pointing to the rise of Internet-related defamation cases, a phenomenon unanticipated when uniform defamation laws were introduced throughout Australia in a landmark 2005 reform.

Her argument was underscored by research released last week by the UTS Centre for Media Transition which found that more than half of defamation cases over the past five years involved reputational damage in a digital medium, up from 17 per cent in 2007 when social media was in its infancy.

The common perception that defamation cases typically involve celebrities suing the media for millions of dollars – like recent litigants Rebel Wilson and Geoffrey Rush – is a myth. The study showed that among the 189 decided cases from 2013-2017, only one third of defendants were media companies, and only about one fifth of those bringing the action were celebrities or public figures.

When you read the detail on the cases, it becomes clear that most defamation cases are contests between ordinary citizens over negative remarks they have made about each other on social media, websites, emails and other means of digital communication.

With the advent of social media, everyone is a publisher in the eyes of defamation law – and many more people in far-flung places can see or hear the nasty things we say about each other.

Broken friendships, business disagreements and political or moral debates escalate and get vindictive and personal.

There was the first Twitter case where a misguided former student posted a social media character assassination against a school teacher because he mistakenly thought she had cost his father his job.

And the disgruntled businessman who used the social media platform WeChat and targeted emails to tell the world a meat trader was a conman, corrupt and a criminal, with no factual basis.

And the Victorian junior football umpire with Asperger’s Syndrome who was taunted on a US autism website with falsities that he was a pedophile and was faking his condition.

For centuries there have been some people inclined to write poison pen letters, spread nasty rumours and to post sick messages on public noticeboards and toilet walls. The Internet and social media has given them a wide audience for their bile and some of these now result in defamation trials.

Prior to the 2005 reforms, defamation law in Australia was a complicated mess. Major variations existed across the states and territories on a host of issues, including the limitation periods in which people could bring an action and the defences available. ‘Forum shopping’ was rife, with plaintiffs selecting the jurisdiction where the law best suited their case.

The reforms were remarkable in that attorneys-general in eight states and territories reached agreement and forged the changes through their parliaments.

But those laws are desperately in need of reform if they are to catch up with the social and technological changes of the past decade.

The ‘offer of amends’ system introduced with the last reforms was a novel initiative to keep actions out of court with encouragement for an early offer of damages and an apology. But it is complex, often appealed, and other mediation incentives should be put in place to educate parties about settling their differences earlier to avoid the public and personal expense and distress of litigation. Alternative remedies to damages and injunctions would be a bonus.

The triviality defence is flawed and needs to include something of the flavor of the UK’s “serious harm” test – requiring serious reputational harm as a prerequisite to an action.

Changes also need to encourage public interest journalism rather than punish it.

Journalists deserve a stronger public interest (qualified privilege) defence which does not fail when they refuse to reveal their confidential sources and allows for minor errors in important exposés.

And the truth defence should be narrowed to focus on the single most obvious defamatory meaning to give certainty to the reportage so that lawyers do not generate more obscure meanings a journalist might never have anticipated when researching a story.

The implied freedom to communicate on matters of government – a welcome but technical initiative of the High Court – should be enshrined as a formal statutory defence and satirists should get their own defence to better protect robust political critique via parody and satire.

But in tandem with defamation reforms we need government investment in digital legal literacy. School and adult learning curricula must include the basic legalities of social media and Internet use – stressing the key risks posed by defamatory and contemptuous posts.

Teachers might use some of those moral aphorisms our mothers used to tell us.

They would scold us over our nasty comments with “Do not say to others what you would not want said to you”.

And they would soothe our fragile egos: and “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”

Education and mediation encouraging mindful communication might resolve some defamation actions before they even start.

Disclaimer: While I write about media law and ethics, nothing here should be construed as legal advice. I am an academic, not a lawyer. My only advice is that you consult a lawyer before taking any legal risks.

Leave a comment

Filed under courts, defamation, free expression, media law, Press freedom

Tagged as court reporting, courts, defamation, judges, law, legal education, media law, press freedom, social media law

February 9, 2018 · 12:40 pm

Rare victory for truth defence in vocational education case – #MLGriff

By MARK PEARSON Follow @Journlaw

CASE REPORT: Charan v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] VSC 3

The Australian newspaper had a rare victory using the truth (or justification) defence to defamation in a recent case involving a vocational education businessman.

Education boss found to be dishonest in losing defamation case https://t.co/pfGypDOq9f via @smh

— Prof Mark Pearson (@JournLaw) February 9, 2018

Pure truth defences rarely make their way through the courts because they are usually either settled or decided on other defences such as honest opinion, fair report, triviality or qualified privilege.

Plaintiffs will not usually undergo the pain of public defamation trials if there is some semblance of truth to the allegations against them which will be aired for all to see in media coverage.

Facts

On November 20, 2015, The Australian newspaper published a print article (‘Watchdog takes peak training college to court’) and a similar online version (‘ACCC to take top training college Phoenix Institute to court’). The story was about proposed court action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against a vocational training college called Phoenix Institute owned by the publicly listed Australian Careers Network company (CAN) in the midst of a general crackdown on the sector over unscrupulous door-to-door marketing practices. The article mentioned earlier media reports that alleged Phoenix had sent sales staff into housing commission estates, pressuring potential students to join up and stated that the parent company was under investigation by both the Federal Department of Education and the Australian Skills Quality Authority and that its shares had been suspended from trade for the previous month. The article identified the plaintiff, Atkinson Prakash Charan, as one of the company’s heads and stated he had amassed a $35 million fortune from the vocational education business. In short, it suggested that, “whilst under his management, VET organisations acted unscrupulously, in breach of regulatory standards, and that he made a large amount of money as a result of that conduct” (para 2). Mr Charan had in fact left the company about a year earlier and The Australian the next day published a correction to that effect in its print edition and later an online apology for the error.

Law

The plaintiff pleaded eight imputations arose from the article, which the judge grouped into four headings:

Mr Charan was head of ACN, a company which engaged in unscrupulous business practices that took advantage of vulnerable consumers
Mr Charan was head of ACN, a company which engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.
Charan was head of ACN, which engaged in unscrupulous door-to-door marketing practices to vulnerable consumers
Mr Charan [as head of] ACN carried on a business which was significantly non-compliant with quality standards (para 27).

The defendant Nationwide News – publisher of The Australian – argued successfully that imputations 2 and 3 did not arise and defended the imputations of unscrupulous business practices and significant noncompliance with quality standards successfully using the justification defence by proving that the imputations were substantially true as required under section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005. To prove the unscrupulous conduct allegations it had to convince the court under the civil burden of proof – the ‘balance of probabilities’ – that there was ‘clear and cogent proof’. To do so it drew upon a host of material obtained after the publication, including:

(a) the oral testimony of a number of witnesses who had worked in the CTI group;

(b) the oral testimony of three “students” allegedly enrolled in CTI courses conducted by CTI companies;

(c) the contents of a series of audit reports, student interviews and file reviews (with associated documentation) of CTT and AMA, carried out in 2015 under the instructions of DET; and

(d) a large number of emails and associated documents flowing to and from Mr Charan and other officers or employees of the CTI companies” (para 77).

The latter included records of phone calls and messages subpoenaed from Mr Charan’s telephone service provider Telstra.

Justice Forrest found the plaintiff was ‘was an entirely unreliable witness, not only on this issue but as to all matters relevant to his claim’ (para 111). He concluded with a concise summary of his 768 paragraph judgment:

(a) Mr Charan was defamed in both the written and online versions of the article;

(b) the article defamed him by conveying imputations that:

(1) Mr Charan managed a VET organisation which engaged in unscrupulous business practices which took advantage of vulnerable consumers which resulted in him making a large amount of money; and

(2) Mr Charan managed a VET organisation which was significantly non-compliant with quality standards

I am satisfied that Nationwide has established the substantial truth of both imputations. (paras 762 -763).

Lessons for professional communicators

Several lessons arise from this rare but successful use of the justification (truth) defence by a publisher:

Considerable evidence can be required to prove the truth of imputations stemming from an article, and sometimes this has to be located after the reporting and publishing process has finished, although as much evidence as possible should be available at the time of publication;
A publisher defendant can still win a case on the pleaded imputations even if there is basic error in the story – in this case the fact that Mr Charan had not been formally involved with the management of the company for a year. (Of course, such errors should normally be avoided).;
Defamation cases can be enormously expensive. In this case the 35-day trial was reported to have cost both side mores than $3.5 million in legal fees (Duke and Vedelago, 2018)

1 Comment

Filed under courts, defamation, free expression, media law, Press freedom

Tagged as court reporting, courts, defamation, judges, law, legal education, media law, press freedom, social media law, suppression orders