Media law

By Amber Melville-Brown, Finers Stephens Innocent, London

Cyber balanceAre fundamental human rights incompatible with modern technology - or can the two co-exist?

The implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 is likely to have a large impact on all aspects of law, perhaps none more so than in the areas of defamation and media law.At a recent IBC Conference in London, the effect of the Human Rights Act on media law was discussed by a panel of solicitors, barristers and judiciary.

Opening the conference, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC said that when the act is brought fully into force on 2 October 2000, all existing and future legislation will, so far as possible, have to be read and given effect to in way which is compatible with the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.Articles 6 and 8, guaranteeing the rights to privacy (quiet enjoyment of life) and freedom of speech and expression respectively, most readily effect defamation law, while sections 3 and 6 of the Human Rights Act, dealing with the question of compatibility, provide that the right to free speech should only be interfered with, where it is deemed 'necessary'.The conference delegates considered the impact of the Human Rights Act on the new area of cyber libel.

Why should the new act have any greater impact on this area of law than any other?The answer is perhaps simple.

Although cyber libel is merely an extension of normal defamation principles, the very nature of e-mails and the Internet means that publication of a defamatory statement can be disseminated worldwide at the touch of a button.

The potential damage done and the extent of the publication of the libel, can be dramatically increased via this modern technology.

Does this mean that it will become more 'necessary' to interfere with freedom of speech? as the effect of allowing it to continue unfettered is that the statement becomes potentially more damaging to those it effects.This leads to the question of regulation.

Cyber libel differs from traditional defamation law in that traditional broadcasters and publishers have codes of practice to which they adhere (or not, as the case may be) and they can be admonished for breaches.

However, individuals who publish articles on the Internet at present do not have to comply with any code, save where they are bound by terms in their contracts of employment, for example.

The relaxed, chatty and casual nature of the newsgroups has its benefits, in allowing for ideas to be expressed and information to be shared worldwide and quickly.However, it can also enable off-the-cuff remarks - and deliberate smearing - to affect individuals and their reputations.

Lawrence Godfrey, who recently settled his libel action against the Internet service provider Demon, knows this from personal experience.So, as the age of modern technology marches inexorably on, the courts are beginning to establish case law on the correct balance between privacy and freedom of speech and expression.By the very nature of speedy publications on the Internet, it is likely that a fast-moving body of case law will be established balancing these two rights.

Such new case law will, by virtue of the Human Rights Act, be required to be compatible with European Convention rights.How this will be interpreted by those making our laws remains to be seen.