Qualified Privilege and Locke Seminar

In reporting of courts, you automatically have qualified privilege defence when repeat, publish or broadcast defamatory remarks. Also, it requires immediate publication with no errors or malice (Malice can be lack of balance), you never have AP as a journalist, though in practice if a report is free from error and published immediately, then qualified privilege confers a similar degree of protection. A journalist has qualified privilege at a range of other public events, so long as he or she allows the defamed person to deny it in the same report. Furthermore, if all 10 points of the Reynolds Test, plus the interest of the public, then you are entitled to qualified privilege in making defamatory allegations outright, without quoting somebody who is protected by AP.

An example of this is the Reynolds Defence, in which a report claiming Reynolds had misled Irish government failed to include an explanation from Reynolds himself, so the former Prime Minister instigated the defamation act.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd)

The courts have been reluctant to extend the defence of qualified privilege to provide the media with a public interest defence. However in 'Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd', the House of Lords recognised the "high importance of freedom to impart and receive information and ideas" and observed that the "press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a watchdog".

Reynolds' ten point test forms a curriculum of high quality for journalism which should enjoy a deree of legal protection. The court was to take into account the following 10 matters:

1. The seriousness of the allegation
2. The nature of the information (and the event to which subject-matter is a matter of public concern)
3. The source of the information
4. The steps taken to verify information
5. The status of information
6. The urgency of the matter
7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant
8. Whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story
9. The tone of the article
10. The circumstances of the publication (including its timing)

The Locke seminar provided inspiration, debate and at times humour in a constructive hour of discussion. It was based upon the set reading of "Epistle to the Reader" and the person who was John Locke. Another two seminar papers were required, this week from Karen Purnell and Hana Keegan (two people who have been given the nicknames "Purnell" and "King Kev" by myself and my astute friend Jake Gable).
Both seminar leaders provided insight and vision, explaining the background of Locke's life, linked with the reading. This sparked an imediate debate from within the group, the first coming from Jake who managed to lie about a certain pool series we had recently played, claiming he won convincingly (despite me winning the series 10-1). To move away from the irrelevance of my pool dominance, along with discussing our role without a government, I managed to mention that this is how More's 'Utopia' was formed. Without a set government or law-abiding code, 'Utopia' was formed by merely the random selection of educated men, and we came to conclude in random discussion that tis is possibly what would occur if we were to have no government or leadership. It begged the question whether we even needed a government to run society. Couldn't we just adapt and learn on our own, and if so, where would our rules come from?
Locke was considered to be the first ever empiricist who believed that knowledge came from experience, and not innate ideas. I have to say, I agree with this philiosophy.

Many thanks, and enjoy the week.
G-Man