Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12425, 7 August 1902, Page 4

the law ov libel. The great bulk of the public is probably in a state of abysmal ignorance regarding the bearing upon journalists of the law of libel as it oxists in New Zealand. It does not sufficiently realise, at auyrnte, that there are a great many statements made at public meetings 'wliiflli newspapers dare not, report if 1 heir proprietors are not prepared f 0 run the ris); of being sued for damages for libel, lii Certainly does not recognise that fair and accurate reports'of public;, meetings lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the- furtherance or diwuwiou of a matter of public concern are not protected. it would bo helped to a knowlodge o? the manner in which the press is "cabin'd,' cribb'd, ■confiii'd" by the law if a paper on the subject which was recently read before the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Journalists' Institute, by Mr P.. ?i\ .Allan were vSUnly Circulated.' It is shown by Mr Atlau.— wtial some people who oppose the Hill, which Mr Camcross lias before Parliament for the amendment of the law have never beenvWiily enough in' adDijl.—tliac the proprietors and conducWs of. the newspapers of New Zealand have not asked that, they may be accordcd greater freedom of comment. It is generally acknowledged that the press is reasonably protected iii regard to the comments it offers and the criticisms it passes upon matters of public interest. At all cveiits, it does not ask that it should be. granted a larger measure of liberty in the expression of the judgment it may-form upon current event's. What it does ask is that it shall be relieved of the absurd restrictions which are at present placed upon the publication by it of accurate and unbiased reports of public discussions at meetings of local bodies and at public race tings the proceedings at which are of concern to the community. In England the law of libel ie much in advance of the New Zealand law. It accords privilege upon certain conditions to the publication of a report of a public meeting that, is held for a lawful purpose. The conditions referred to are most important. The report must be a fair and accurate one or pise, no privilege wijl attach to it, and simi-> lariy it mqst have been published without malice and its publication must bo for the "public benefit if tho proprietors of the newspaper containing it are to have the protection 1 of the law. This law, it is to he observed, does not relieve the conductor ,of a journal of his responsibility in regard to the publication of reports of meetings. The. newspaper's privilege is of no avail if the meeting that is reported is not genuinely a public meeting, or if the report- is not fair and accurate or if it is malicious. Even if in' these respects it satisfies the requirements' qf tho law, it is still the duty of the editor, ns Dp Blake Odgers, a. renowned authority on the matter, has observed, to excise every matter that is Hot of pyblic concern and the publication of which is not for the public benefit; and in doing so lie "must remember that- ; while . there are many matters which concern the public in which they take no interest, they take great interest in-many other matters with which they. have*. 110 concern." Though in all these'points, the newspaper may be absolutely within its rights it still loses its privilege if it has insertion i'to a reasonable letter explaining or contradicting a defamatory statement ' that lias inadvertently appeared in its report. A law of this kind, it should be obvious, does not grant to a newspaper license in the use of its columns; it grants it what fairminded persons must admit to be only reasonable liberty. And it is a- law on these lines which the, preps 111 New Zealand desires and which is year after year denied to it. It is in the hastily scanned reports passed in to the ,subeditor of a paper in the rush of the last hour or two-before the issue goes to press, when the work of revision has to be very hurriedly performed that- a libel frequently .lurks; it may also appear in the comments, contaiued iu the lending columns; or in the advertisements. But there is no matter intended for insertion in a journal that- needs more careful, revision than that which appears in the shape of ''letters to the editors." Uifriously enough, Mr Allan does not include tliem in his analysis of the divisions of a newspaper. They are not seldom, inspired: by malice, they frequently contain false statements, and not less frequently ~do they , contaiu libellous innuendoes; and in most of these cases they. are . anonymous. But even where the writers sign their names to them the paper-that publishes tliem is legally responsible if they contaiu defamatory statements. Mr Fisher, who does not | like MrCarncross's Libel Bill, has a. measure before Parliament- to compel the disclosure of the names of the writers, of anonymous letters. If this were passed it would greatly relieve the minds of newspaper proprietors, who under the existing law have to be unceasingly vigilant to keep the columns of their publications free from matter the insertion'of which would expose them to the risk of an action and of heavy loss. :