25-05-2023, 08:08 PM
(25-05-2023, 07:00 PM)matthieu1221 Wrote:(25-05-2023, 08:15 AM)Stooky Bill Wrote: It happened at the weekend when a contributor libelled Philip Schofield thinking that saying 'allegedly' afterwards meant it didn't count. Even though one of the other guests was lawyer Jerry Hayes, who urged her to retract she didn't and there was a very late intervention by Mark Dolan.
Despite the defamatory nature they left it online for over 36 hours
(sorry mods if this clip isn't allowed)
twitter.com
Who would be liable? The guest of course, but would the channel itself be liable to a suit?
Both. It's why - for example - if you tune into paper reviews on other channels, if a paper has been foolhardy enough to publish something libelous (or legally contentious, without right-of-reply to the person concerned), not only would the panel not be allowed to discuss it, the channel wouldn't run it at all - even as part of a summary - because any utterance of a libel (even a presenter saying: "Paper X claims this") would - if it were proven to be libelous - constitute a fresh instance of libel.
Were a misjudgment to be made or a guest were to "go rogue" and say what they wanted against the instruction of producers, both the channel and the guest would be held liable.
It's why producers of such programmes have to be VERY careful.