UK MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT LAW

Defamation protects reputation , no more . Discuss whether this statement is true of the law of defamation in the UK Reputation is like a badge and armour of a person . He would take great pains to protect it from tarnish made by outside forces . But , there are also times when the person is responsible for staining his reputation as when he does something that catches the eye of the public . Other times the person is simply within the public 's scrutiny that he cannot escape being subjected to defamatory words or statements . That person

has the right to bring up a claim against the person who made such defamatory statements . However , the person cannot simply bring up a case against the person who supposedly issued the defamatory materials . The claim must be based on the claimant 's reputation , that it was defamed and damaged before he can successfully prosecute . Although the burden is on the defendant , still , the defendant can easily evade prosecution if the elements of defamation under the Defamation Act of 1996 are not present Moreover , the main consideration in a defamation claim is whether or not there is a reputation that was damaged as a result of the defamatory statements published . If the defendant successfully alleges that there is no reputation to protect , then the defamation claim cannot move on Defamation is very complex and indeed cannot be generalized in just one context . By its very meaning alone , defamation may be defined as any published material that causes damage to the reputation of an individual or organizations . However , since there are two versions of defamation libel and slander , the scope given by the Defamation law of 1996 although very broad is only limited to the protection of reputation alone . Defamation covers materials published in the internet , TV , print radio . Even movies and dramas are included in the scope of defamation Because of the broadness as to the scope of defamation indicated in the Defamation Act of 1996 , Swarbiggs ' statement that defamation protects reputation , no more , still holds true . Words either made verbally or in print are considered defamatory if they tend to reduce a person 's reputation in the minds of the right thinking members of society (swarbick . But then again , the burden of proof in showing that a person is guilty of defamation must be proven beyond the thin line of what constitutes defamation There are various defences that a person can use in proving that the use of words is not merely abusive but rather defamatory in nature . Among such is the defence of truth wherein a person may escape liability if he can show to the satisfaction of the jury that the supposed defamatory claim is true . Once a person is able to prove this to the jury , the person may then escape liability from the claimant . This in turn will lead to Swarbigg 's statement that defamation protects reputation , no more . It is immaterial that the defamatory words have caused damage to the claimant...