Belle
02-10-2003, 14:37
copied from the BBC website today
Sex and soccer. An irresistible combination for the tabloids which, over the last three days, have shown all their ingenuity in pushing the legal boundaries on responsible reporting to their limits.
Most of the media has reported the story of allegations by a 17-year-old girl that she was raped in an attack involving eight Premiership footballers.
And the papers' defence that the public has an appetite for the story is bolstered by the amount of email traffic purporting to reveal the identities of the players involved.
But does this mean the law is powerless to act?
Firstly, the popular notion that the internet is a kind of legal safe haven is not true.
The report that a law firm acting for some Premiership players is threatening action against the senders of emails naming the players may sound like bravado but is grounded in legal logic.
Last year, a former teacher won damages from an ex-pupil over libellous allegations posted on the Friends Reunited website.
And four years ago, a university lecturer sued an internet service provider for statements made on one of its sites.
Repeating defamatory comments creates liability in law not just for what is said but also for the resulting spread of the gossip, if untrue.
So, sending an email to an office colleague or mate about the players could have consequences, either for the sender or the ISP.
At the moment, the threat of a libel action is the only legal obstacle to publication of the players' names by the media.
The law of contempt is designed to ensure a fair trial, free from prejudicial reporting and comment, but it applies only from the moment of arrest.
Since no-one has been arrested, the press is free to publish the names of suspects.
It is true that the attorney general has issued warnings in this case but it is voluntary restraint - fuelled by the aftermath of the John Leslie case - which is staying the hand of the media in publishing names.
Neither is there any injunction in force preventing the naming of a player.
In the past, this has barred the press from reporting allegations - indeed, it was the means by which the Blackburn player, Garry Flitcroft, muzzled the media for some months from revealing an affair.
But the reach of modern communications can make injunctions untenable.
At Christmas 1997, the hot gossip was all about which Cabinet minister was trying to prevent allegations that his teenage son was dealing drugs.
After a week of fevered speculation, a High Court judge lifted an injunction because the names - it was Jack Straw's son, William - had already appeared in the Scottish media and abroad.
It seems improbable that, despite the legal threats and cajoling, the participants in this latest drama will remain anonymous indefinitely.
Sex and soccer. An irresistible combination for the tabloids which, over the last three days, have shown all their ingenuity in pushing the legal boundaries on responsible reporting to their limits.
Most of the media has reported the story of allegations by a 17-year-old girl that she was raped in an attack involving eight Premiership footballers.
And the papers' defence that the public has an appetite for the story is bolstered by the amount of email traffic purporting to reveal the identities of the players involved.
But does this mean the law is powerless to act?
Firstly, the popular notion that the internet is a kind of legal safe haven is not true.
The report that a law firm acting for some Premiership players is threatening action against the senders of emails naming the players may sound like bravado but is grounded in legal logic.
Last year, a former teacher won damages from an ex-pupil over libellous allegations posted on the Friends Reunited website.
And four years ago, a university lecturer sued an internet service provider for statements made on one of its sites.
Repeating defamatory comments creates liability in law not just for what is said but also for the resulting spread of the gossip, if untrue.
So, sending an email to an office colleague or mate about the players could have consequences, either for the sender or the ISP.
At the moment, the threat of a libel action is the only legal obstacle to publication of the players' names by the media.
The law of contempt is designed to ensure a fair trial, free from prejudicial reporting and comment, but it applies only from the moment of arrest.
Since no-one has been arrested, the press is free to publish the names of suspects.
It is true that the attorney general has issued warnings in this case but it is voluntary restraint - fuelled by the aftermath of the John Leslie case - which is staying the hand of the media in publishing names.
Neither is there any injunction in force preventing the naming of a player.
In the past, this has barred the press from reporting allegations - indeed, it was the means by which the Blackburn player, Garry Flitcroft, muzzled the media for some months from revealing an affair.
But the reach of modern communications can make injunctions untenable.
At Christmas 1997, the hot gossip was all about which Cabinet minister was trying to prevent allegations that his teenage son was dealing drugs.
After a week of fevered speculation, a High Court judge lifted an injunction because the names - it was Jack Straw's son, William - had already appeared in the Scottish media and abroad.
It seems improbable that, despite the legal threats and cajoling, the participants in this latest drama will remain anonymous indefinitely.