If the public (the consumers) of the press output held them to account, there would be no "need" for these laws. Their dysfunctionality is merely a reflection of the dysfunctionality of the way we treat the press.
Specifically, (a) we believe to a large extent what the press says, and (b) we do not punish the press when they have been exposed for printing a malicious lie. If there were any consequences for printing lies, then there wouldn't need to be any special laws. But there are no consequences, because people don't read the newspapers for the truth. They read it for the conversation, and to find out what all their friends are thinking (now that they have been told what to think by their respective copies of the paper). If you think what everyone else is thinking, then you are sane. When everyone is printing the same lie, then there are consequences for telling the truth -- the least of which is that you appear crazy. Controlling what the papers print works. Carter-Ruck are incompetent at this job because they only have one tool in their box, and it doesn't always work. JT. On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Francis Davey <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/10/13 Adrian Short <[email protected]>: >> >> But then everyone would find out about you and the badger, who, >> incidentally, has some excellent photographs. > > No, for numerous reasons. I know you are joking but for many people > being caught up in defamation claims is a serious and unpleasant > business. It can seriously ruin your life for a while. > > So, if the badger incident didn't happen, then no-one is going to > "find out" about it are they? I can bring claims for negligent > misstatement, malicious falsehood and/or under s10 of the Data > Protection Act to get things straightened out (one way or another). I > can certainly do something about it. > > If it did happen then defamation is much less help to me and *ought* > to be no help. I can use the new "breach of privacy" laws which the > courts are developing to try and do something about it (depending > again on what the incident was) but really this all should be > irrelevant. > > -- > Francis Davey > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public > _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
