North Otago Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1900. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

North Otago Times, 2 December 1910, Page 2

North Otago Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1900. THE LAW OF LIBEL.

while marly all civilised countrieg in the world have done something to protect newspapers in the discharge of 'fchein duties New (Zealand has lagged behind, and| left the press to wqrry through as test it could in respect to reports of all public proceedings-public proceedings in which the interests of the people may be involved in the exposure of something that while it is not criminal is better to have had the searchlight of publicity turned upon it. Sir Joseph Ward, in the course of his. remarks in moving the second reading of the Law of Libel Amendment Bill, .qaiJi the newspaper press was privileged in respect tol only Parliamentary and Supreme Court proceedings,! Sir Joseph is mistaken, as thd press is, only privileged to a limited extent in reporting Supreme Court and Parliamentary proceedings. It dare not report all that takes place in Parliament or the Supreme Court, unless, of course, it is prepared to subject itself to an expensive lawsuit. The press, however, often accepts the responsibility when it is aware that what has 'been said is true; but for once that it is in a; posfition to act with authority iji this respect there are a dozen times that it is ignorant of the facts, and perforce it has to handle the subject so gingerly that the public are practically in the dark in respect to the actions of public men in their public capacities. The press does not ask to be privileged in its animadversions. | If it- libels anyone or Inserts a malicious report it has to take the'■consequences, It merely asks that it should be protected in tbe discharge of a public duty,, and even in the discharge of that' duty it has to walk with circumspection, it has to aflord whoever feels himself traduced the opportunity of putting himself right with , the public. No newspaper will refuse that, but under the Bill brought in by Sir Joseph Ward the newspaper is compelled to open its columns t 0 an explanation or a statement of the facts,. No one can be very much hurt by the passage of the Bill unless it be those who persist in going crooked, and their .exposure is a duty tbe people expect the press to render it. Under the present law newspapers will not accept thei re-. fiPonsMlty of incurring, great , expense in defending nn adieu the result whereof is problematical. Mr T. E. Taylor is ar<. almost mcessary man in Parliament, He is lfte r hornet in a room. He keeps everyone lively while he is movin» roundbut apparently he became tied' in r, knot, over^e^ supposed in-

volutions of tlie press libel law and' the Press Association., Mr Taylor is not particularly anxious that the press should, have greater freedom in reporting the meetings of public bodies; but why should Mr Taylor be clothed with the privilege of saying anything, he likes. in Parliament -and he Bays it —wliilo the newspaper runs q, risk if, it reports him ? The newspapers ask only the privii lege of being able to report public meetings without running the risk of expensive actions at law. For anything malicious the, newspapers will still have to bear the ilirunt of proceedings, Even when Sir Joseph Ward's Bill becomes law it will be a lor,? way behind that of the conservative old country, where the newspapers have far greater privilcdges than in the most progressive country under the sun, In Australia the law oE libel is somewhat similar to that of Britain. But New Zealand is moving—like the snail.