I guess I'm a critic. Hence this piqued my interest: Irish News suffers from disgraceful libel loss
"defamatory, damaging and hurtful".
"Juries do not like the press,"
I clicked the links but could not find any further info, so may I ask a few questions here.
It is indeed hard to imagine a critique that, if negative, could not at least err on the damaging. Hurtful seems harder to prove. Defamatory looks more promising legally, based on evidence.
Now I appreciate that the legal process and justice can be inconvenienced by the sometimes erratic nature of '12 good persons and true', but I'm not sure that 'not liking the press' would be allowed.
I just wonder on what basis the jury found in favour of what seems to be a legal, if not very legitimate charge? Was the food too whatever. Were the venue and the staff as described? If not, and this was proven, then we have another story. If so, one can only wonder at the quality of the defence.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.