Media Law: Defamation and Privacy Issues in the Case of Edited Images on Adult Site

Running head: MEDIA LAW
MEDIA LAW
Name of Student
Name of University
Author Note

1MEDIA LAW
1. Defamation
Main issues
The primary issue in the current scenario is deciding whether the contents in the adult site
can be considered as defamatory towards the women whose images have been edited on to the
pornographic images. The tort of Defamation has been defined under section 6(2) of the
Defamation Act 20091 as to be consisting of publication of any defamatory statement, by any
means, which concerns one or more persons. The term ‘statement’ has been defined under
section 2 of Defamation Act 20092 as to be including any statement that has been made orally or
in writing; any kind of visual image, gesture, sound or any other significant method; any
statement that has been broadcasted on radio or television or has been published on the internet;
or any electronic communication which can be seen to be including information communication
in the form of data, sound, images or texts by the means of guided or unguided electromagnetic
energy or both.
To decide whether the edited pictures can be considered as defamatory the following
elements of defamation are also needed to be considered. They are:
1. Can the publication be considered as false and defamatory towards the women?
2. Was the publication of the pictures unprivileged? Or was the publisher of the pictures given
explicit permission for the publication of the pictures by the owner?
1 Defamation Act 2009, s.6(2)
2 Defamation Act 2009, s.2

2MEDIA LAW
3. Whether the pictures would be lowering the women in the eyes of any right thinking
reasonable member of the society?
According to the judgment in the case Berry v Irish Times (1973)3 it was held that
although the statement was not true yet it would not be lowering Berry in the eyes of any right
thinking member of the society as the conviction of the criminals, according to the Supreme
Court, is considered as a public duty and any right thinking member of the society would be
approving of such action. It was held that the statement made against Berry was not defamatory.
Another case that can be taken into consideration in this context is Travers v Sunday
World (2016)4 where a defamation action brought by a bank worker questioned in connection to
‘tiger kidnapping’ was settled by the defendants. In the article published by the defendants a
photo of the plaintiff was used in which he was seen to be standing next to a Bentley and a
Ferrari.
In this essay a detailed analysis would be done for establishing whether the pictures could
be considered as defamatory and if they are found to be defamatory the defences that could be
seen appropriate for this case would also be analyzed in detail in the essay. The criteria for the
establishment of defamation would also be discussed.
Points to take into consideration
If the applicants become successful in the claims of defamation made by them it could be
costing the site using their pictures a huge sum of money. As per section 31 of the Defamation
Act 20095 directions can be given by the judges towards the juries for the level of the damages
3 Berry v Irish Times (1973)
4 Travers v Sunday World (2016)
5 Defamation Act 2009, s.31

3MEDIA LAW
that are to be awarded for the distress, humiliation and hurt caused to the person because of the
defamatory statement. If it is found by the juries that the pictures are distasteful and could be
considered as defamatory statement, there could be harsher damages awarded by the jury, as was
seen in the case De Rossa v Independent Newspaper plc. (1999)6. It was observed in the case that
De Rossa was awarded an amount of £300,000 by the High Court juries. When appealed to the
Supreme Court it was stated by the Supreme Court that for awarding damage, the seriousness of
the defamation and the extent of the publication is needed to be considered. It was further stated
by the court that any detailed direction for the damages should not be given towards the juries
that could be interfering with the functions and independence of the juries.
An important aspect that needs to be taken into consideration in the case is whether the
statement made would be identifying towards the plaintiff. Even if the statement does not
explicitly mentions the name of the person who has been defamed, the description provided
would be enough for recognizing the person. As per section 6(3) of the Defamation Act 20097
any defamatory statement would be considered to be concerning a person if it could be
reasonable to be understanding that the statement had been referring to him. This was the case in
Browne v Independent Newspaper (1991)8. In the case an article about the corrupt planning
officials was published along with reference to ‘Builder John Browne’ which was stated as a
fictitious name a several columns later. The plaintiff was a builder named John Browne who
claimed that he had been defamed. The plaintiff was awarded £75,000 on the grounds that it is
not necessary that any reasonable person would be reading an entire long article to find that the
name had been fictitious.
6 De Rossa v Independent Newspaper plc. (1999)
7 Defamattion Act, s.6(3)
8 Browne v Independent Newspaper (1991)