Topic: Media Law - Defamation

Read the case study below carefully and Answer the two (2) questions at the end of the case study.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case Study:

Steven woke up very early to compile the subscribers' comments. This has become his daily routine as an editor-in-chief of The Morning Herald, the most prominent independent online media in the country.

What caught Steven's attention today was thousands of readers' comments on a political crisis in Scotland. As he read along, most of the comments were questioning how the Prime Minister Jeremy Hunt solved the crisis. Among those, some of the readers even remained suspicious if the Prime Minister had spent money to end the crisis.

Kangaroocourt:It is Deja vu. You reap what you sow. And the government sowed this in the similar crisis occurred in the North Ireland years ago. What a bitter pill for PM Jeremy Hunt to swallow.

Now I wonder how much he will spend to keep Scotland government-friendly? And how much more to keep his premiership?

KnockKnock:Yes, I wouldn't be surprised at all. This is typical government game of 'How to Become a Millionaire: Before, Now and Forever'.

It is just a matter of "how much?"

Anonymous #06188481: Jeremy simply has many skeletons in his closet. Haha!

"Interesting," said Steven who was chuckling.

To accomplish this, Steven selected some other interesting comments and compiled them in "Yoursay" section.

"Yoursay" is a section in The Morning Herald where comments on a particular news article are compiled into one news story.

Before some other editors came into the office, Steven had published two compilations of the readers' comments with rather provocative headlines that read:

1)'A case of the PM reaping what he sows'

2)'How much will Jeremy spend to keep Scotland?'

"Wow Steven, those are good one!" said Omar, the second editor-in-chief.

On the other hand, PM Jeremy was informed by his secretary about this publication on the website.

"Mr. Prime Minister, The Morning Herald is here to trouble you again. [Handing an Ipad to show PM the website] With all due respect sir, I think you have tolerated enough," said Ivan, who is Jeremy's secretary.

"Using irrational readers' comments as headlines is gutter journalism. The Morning Herald is hiding behind their mad readers' comments," said Ivan.

Jeremy nodded his head calmly and said to Ivan: "You go ahead."

One week later, Steven received a letter from the lawyers representing Jeremy Hunt. Jeremy's lawyers were claiming that he was defamed by the comments made by readers of The Morning Herald news website.

In other words, Jeremy is suing the news portal's editors not for publishing a libellous news story but for allowing libellous comments to be posted on their website.

However, Jeremy is demanding an unconditional apology fromThe Morning Heraldwithin 48 hours from the issuance of the letter of demand and a retraction of the alleged defamatory articles.

"What do you think Steven? Should we apologize? This is the first time in my life hearing a country's Prime Minister suing media organisation. We would have to get a lot of money for this!" asked Omar.

"You know what? I think we should play this game with him. It would be interesting to get Prime Minister to be summoned by the court. After all, he is the one who started this," said Steven.

Steven then held an urgent meeting and told the team about this.

"Jeremy and his party could have availed of the right of reply law to answer the 'unfair' comments made by readers without resorting to legal action."

"Our Yoursay section is not new. He should know. Under this section, the ordinary citizens are given the chance to freely express their thoughts."

On the other hand, Ivan was holding a press conference to explain the defamation suit.

"These articles were based on reader comments selected and then republished by The Morning Herald. The comments made a slew of false and defamatory allegations against the Prime Minister; including insinuating his involvement in serious crime.

"After the articles were published, the Prime Minister's legal team wrote to The Morning Herald and requested that the articles be removed and an apology issued. But The Morning Herald refused, and instead published the private legal letter and further articles.

"The Prime Minister's legal team therefore decided to take legal action against The Morning Herald for defamation," said Ivan.

"But how will this remarkable defamation suit affect the press freedom in the country?" asked Claire, a reporter in the press conference.

Ivan answered: "Our country has a free and open online media. A cursory glance at the online media shows its independence - news portals frequently criticize both the Prime Minister and the Government and engage in robust political debate.

"The Prime Minister has frequently stated his commitment to protect the freedom of the country's online media. The defamation case does not undermine this commitment. Thank you."

Ivan then left the press conference room even many other reporters wanted to ask more questions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the case study above, answer the following:

(a)Discuss if The Morning Herald is liable for defamation.

(b)Discuss the best defense The Morning Herald should use in the court.