Another defence to defamation is that of bane and antidote; all the writing must be taken together to form one conclusion. So even if a statement appears to be defamatory on the surface, it may not be due to the context that it is in.
In a case heard before the Court of Appeal in 1995 the actors that played Madge and Harold in Neighbours brought an action against the News of the World after they printed photos of a pornographic nature, with the actors faces over the original faces.
The newspaper had used the photos to illustrate their story, which reported on a video game in which the players of the game could see similar photos. The actors lawyers argued that most people would only look at the photo and read the headline, which read:
"Strewth! What's Harold up to with our Madge?"
They argued that readers could only reach one possible conclusion. However, the judges said that it should be up to a jury to decide if the antidote was enough to satisfy the bane. It would all depend on the context of the piece as a whole, and in this case the antidote was said to cure the bain. It was sufficient in this case that the News of the World had made it clear that these were not true photos of the pair.
There is really only one question to ask about this case; who on earth would want to see Harold Bishop naked in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment