FINAL REPORT Media Law to unesco july1.pdf - AIBD

damage to their reputation. For a statement to be
defamatory, there has to be a degree of stigma attached, he
pointed out.
Dr Iyer then provided the following examples for defamation:
a) attributing criminality
b) accusation of lying, racism or marital infidelity
c) allegations of incompetence or dishonesty in
professions
d) allegations of suffering from a contagious disease
such as Aids.
He went on to highlight the significance of defamation in the
context of investigative journalism and said, in general, the
principle of free speech and the issue of reputation has to be
balanced. Where to draw the line, was sometimes “the most
important and sometimes the most difficult question that
needs to be addressed.”
There are three points that a complainant has to prove, as Dr
Iyer further elaborated:
• The complainant must be recognized, either directly or
indirectly.
• The defamatory statement has to be published.
• The defendant (journalist) must have published the
defamatory statement or be responsible for publication
(e.g. the editor).
Often, as Dr Iyer stressed, journalists are at a disadvantage,
“because your job is to actually prove to the satisfaction of
the court that something is true.”
This provoked two questions from the floor, concerning the
role of a witness in proving the truth of an allegedly
defamatory statement. What if the statement is secretly
recorded, asked one participant. Dr Iyer stressed that it helps,
but it may not be enough in court, because “the other side
might challenge the recording”. Another participant wanted to
know: “What if a witness has signed his or her own
statement?” Dr Iyer said that it was “ok, by and large”, but,
again, the witness might not be willing to testify in court.
Dr Iyer went on to discuss the concept of “innuendo”, which
applies to cases in which something is not stated directly, but
can easily be concluded by the reader. It is interlined. He
cited the example of an anti-smoking campaigner who holds
shares in a tobacco company. This clearly implies hypocrisy.
6