Part A

Privacy is one of basic human rights in the civilized world today. Every person has the right to have private information, hidden from public. In England (and Wales, as both are the constitutional successor of the Kingdom of England in the past and follow one system of legal rules – the so-called English law), the situation with privacy was rather uncertain until 1998, when the Human Rights Act of 1998 was introduced. It was the part of the European Convention on Human Rights. The first mentioned definition of privacy in English law was provided by Judge Cooley, who considered privacy as “the right to be left alone” (UK Law Online 1998). The situation with Princess Diana and her tragic death were the consequences of the disobeying this law.

Most of the newspapers, television news, radio news, and the Internet presented Diana’s death like a murder. The facts were as follows: she and Dodi Al Fayed died in a terrible car accident when they were driving through one of the tunnels in Paris. They hit one of the constructions of the tunnel on the high speed. The car was driven by the driver and bodyguard of Diana. The news said they were followed by paparazzi vehicles in the aggressive manner so the driver lost control over the Mercedes (Jamieson 2009; BBC News 2008).

On the one hand, this event is nothing but a tragic accident, one of many. On the other, the presence of such a public person as Diana and attention to her relationship with Dodi Al Fayed after the breakup with Prince Charles made this event very different in the minds of millions of people. In any case, it was the intrusion into the private life of a public person. The event was represented as a murder of a Princess. Diana was loved by millions of people in the world for her big heart and willingness to help children, save the world, etc. She was a nice person and from the royal family. Therefore, there were right words to be used by media to assure the interest of people for a long time (Jamieson 2009; BBC News 2008).

It is not possible to find out the truth about the event so one cannot say for sure that she was killed on purpose or it was just a terrible accident. However, the media, journalists all over the world, cyber journalists, people who think they have the right to provide the news over the different channels shaped the attitude towards her death, breaking the English law. Thus, most people think that Diana was killed on purpose. That is how people think about this car crash.

The case of Princess Diana’s death is a vivid example of such a controversial situation. There is no direct evidence that her death was an unintentional (intentional?!) murder caused by the paparazzi (who are some sort of criminals, breaking the privacy laws, no doubts) (UK Law Online 1998). However, the news programs were filled with words “murder” and “kill”. It means that the attitude of the society towards the situation was under severe influence of the media. The goals of media holders and involved parties were different, but there are no doubts that the death of such an extraordinary public woman was speculated and used by different forces (Jamieson 2009; BBC News 2008).

People who watched the news back then were thrilled by the ways the materials were given to them. Paparazzi caused the death in a car accident; Princess Diana was killed, etc. – such or similar headlines were everywhere. The only possible way to shape the attitude of people towards such a horrible event was to use the media – television, radio, newspapers, the Internet, etc. It is clear that cyber journalists can influence our perception of reality via media more than we can even imagine.

Part B

The situation is as follows: Billy Smith, who three years ago was convicted of obtaining money by deception using a stolen credit card, is the proprietor of a reputable East London massage and steam bath business called “Smith’s Refreshment Parlour”. This business has recently received visits from the City of London Police Fraud Squad. Paula, a police constable with the City of London Police Fraud Squad, tells her boyfriend, Roger, about the visits. Roger, a reporter with ‘The Daily Bugle’, telephones Billy to check on the story but is unable to contact him. In any event, ‘The Daily Bugle’, purporting to report these events, prints an article containing the following words: “The gay cockney trickster, Billy Smith, is once again the subject of Metropolitan Police inquiries. Smith’s Refreshment Parlour, an East End knocking shop, is thought to provide useful services for those from the twilight zone”.

Smith’s Refreshment Parlour is in fact known locally as the “Knackers’ Yard” because most of its clients are elderly patients from Twilight Green Nursing Home, who attend as part of their physiotherapy program. The following people are now very upset and wish to commence legal proceedings: Billy Smith, who has never been charged with any criminal offence in respect of his business; Patients from the Twilight Green Nursing Home, who frequent Smith’s Refreshment Parlour; and William Smith, who has no connection with Smith’s Refreshment Parlour, but who runs an East End cafe and ice cream parlour called “Smith’s Parlour”. It is clear that certain form of defamation is present in this situation.

First, it is necessary to clarify the definition of defamation and apply the appropriate laws available in the English law system (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003). According to English law, protection of reputation is granted to everyone on the ground that good name is a person’s rights. If a person’s good name is considered disreputable, this “may give cause for an action in the tort of defamation” (Law Teacher 2012) either for libel, actionable per se, if the statement is in a permanent form or for slander if the statement is in transient form and the claimant can prove special damage (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003). A person who has been defamed and who wishes to file a claim should provide the following facts: a) it is possible to use the words that have been used to insult someone – with these words the claimant could feel lower self-esteem and less of a normal person, these words can cause the feeling of ridicule, hatred or contempt, and can lead to the public shunning or avoidance of the claimant; b) the words were meant to refer exactly to the claimant and not everyone else – even if the person did not get specific mention or reference was made using a character of fiction; c) that defamatory words were published – legally, publication means that communication was made with other people and not only the person who mounts a claim (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003).

Defamation, without having one strict definition, means that someone makes a statement that can possible damage the opinion of people regarding some other person or even a group of persons (Law on the Web 2012). Not everyone can make a claim about defamation, as the defamation statement must be so specific that a claimant reputation will most likely be harmed. One should not forget that simple abuse would not be considered defamatory (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003).

There are two forms of defamation. These are slander and label. The difference between these two notions lies in the following: generally, slander is such a defamation made orally, through speech, while libel is such a defamatory comment that has been published. Defamation may be remedied in various ways, but like any punishment for a crime, it is an attempt to somehow ease the pain and harm caused to victimized person by some defamatory words (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003). Among such ways are a fine, which is paid to the victim; also, the publication that had hurt someone’s reputation can be officially retracted. Defamation aimed to hurt the reputation of the media is usually considered libel. In this case, the following will be regarded as libel: “Print form; Broadcast on TV or Radio (Broadcasting Act of 1990); In film or videos; On the internet; Made during public performances of a play (Theatres Act of 1968).” (Kelly Warner Law Firm 2012).

If there is a necessity in taking legal action, there can be different defenses for defamation. Saying a negative thing about a person does not always mean that this saying is illegal. On the contrary, it the statement is proven truthful, this will be sufficient defense. Besides, there is a “fair comment” rule and it allows the statement of justifiable opinions, even if those opinions are seen as negative (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003).

In Great Britain, individuals, legally incorporated associations, and corporations are able to sue for defamation. On the other hand, Trade Unions, unincorporated organizations and political parties are not able to sue, as they are not legally incorporated (Law on the Web 2012). As for the elected authorities, they can file a suit for malicious falsehood, but not for defamation, that concerns their administrative or governmental functions. If someone publishes a defamatory statement regarding some party, any member of this party can put forward a lawsuit for libel. This will be possible in case the defamatory statement harms the reputation of this party member (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003).

In most of the instances, defamation cases do not get into court, the settlement is performed out of court, including fines as the forms of damages payment. In Great Britain, usually 12-member juries decide on damages in cases regarding defamation (Law on the Web 2012). This process can be unpredictable and sometimes the damages are very high. Upon agreement of both parties, it is possible to dispense with the jury and only the judge will adjudicate the case. According to some statutory provisions, only a judge can perform the trial in case there are complicated technical issues in the case or there are too many document (Jones 2000; Loveland 2003).

The defamation law in Great Britain is governed by the Defamation Act of 1996. It is worth mentioning that civil claims only can be filed for defamation. According to Articles 5 and 6 of the above-mentioned Act, if a year has passed since the date of defamation occurrence, it is not possible to sue for defamation any longer (Law on the Web 2012).

Considering the provided legislative and factual base, the situation with Billy Smith and his offender, Roger, a reporter with ‘The Daily Bugle’ becomes rather clear. Roger did not have the chance to clarify the situation with Billy regarding the circumstances of the credit card fraud case. In addition, he has never met the person, so the article was published using the words of Paula, a police constable with the City of London Police Fraud Squad, and his own speculations.

Roger published the article using rather controversial words such as “gay”, “trickster”, and “knocking shop”. These words are offensive in the context of the article because of the slang meaning of them. On the other hand, they are even more inappropriate to be used in this case due to the lack of facts that would have been able to justify their usage. Billy Smith may not be gay regardless of the other meaning of this word (merry), so this is defamation; calling his business “knocking shop” is inappropriate by default – there is no proof of such kind of activity in this place and the visitors of the Smith’s Refreshment Parlour are elderly patients from Twilight Green Nursing Home. Roger gives some kind of a hint that sounds very unpleasant like “for those from the twilight zone” – it dishonors respectful patients of the Nursing Home and offends their dignity.

Finally, the dignity and business interest of William Smith, who runs an East End café and ice cream parlor called “Smith’s Parlor”. The associations that a reader can obtain reading Roger’s article can harm the reputation of William (Bill) Smith as the indirect accusation in tricking the clients and his sexual orientation as well as provide negative aftereffects to the café he runs. Having no proof that Billy Smith has ever deceived clients, Roger claims so indirectly. Using the above-mentioned legislative acts and definitions, all parties that were indirectly accused and offended are capable of preparing a lawsuit to protect their dignity.