'no smoke without fire...'

 The main message of the today's Media Law session was:
Publication + Defamation + Identification = Libel
The lecture was based on an example of defamation made by a journalism student about another student on his blog.
It was an excellent example to discuss, as in certain situtions it could, theoretically, become a serious case.
In this case the student had used the name of another student in an example of defamation,  however the statement (Jo Bloggs is a homosexual) that was used within the example could be taken as an innuendo and therefore the other student was libelled:
It was Published
It was a defamatory statement and
The student was identified.

The only defence for this would be Justification ( if it can be proved that Jo Bloggs is in fact a homosexual).

We touched on the Banbury case, whereby 39 police officers sued a newspaper in 1993 after they insinuated that 'some officers' at the Banbury station were corrupt.They won their case as the statement had defamed all officers, the defence accidetal libel was not good enough.

"There's no smoke without fire"

Defamation also counts eve when a published statement 'tends to defame', there does not have to be proof of defamation as such. (e.g that a person has lost their job etc.)

"the typical tabloid reader is a moron in a hurry"

The more serious the defamatory statement the better the defence needs to be.

Defamation is not the same as telling a lie about someone (possibly malice) or falsehood. (e.g Mr Smith is from the UK, when in fact he is from the USA, its not true but it does not defame him in any way.

Obviously these lecture notes are just that, lecture notes, so they are lacking in detail and some explanation, I will get round to making a 'Media Law Glossery' any day now...