The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1913. THE PRESS & THE PEOPLE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1807, 21 July 1913, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1913. THE PRESS & THE PEOPLE.

The Defamation Bill which has been introduced in the House of Representatives —a summary of which appeared in Saturday s Dominion—makes some important alterations in the present law of libel. Though in one or two details it may be open to criticism, it is on the whole a reasonable and necessary measure. The law regarding libel or defamation has two_ main objects—firstly, the protection of the individual, and, secondly, the maintenance of the right of free speech and a free press. No fair-minded : journalist'desires to be permitted to make wanton attacks on the character or reputation of anyone, or, without just cause, to do anything that might' injure any man as_ regards his means of making a livelihood. Every citizen has a perfect right to the protection of the law against unjustifiable attack in a newspaper or »other periodical, or by spoken word. On the other hand, the freedom of the press is one of the great safeguards of private and national liberty, and every true democracy has strenuously resisted all attempts to interfere with the legitimate publication of news and fullest criticism of public affairs, provided always that the canons of decency and fair play are not outraged. In a genuine democracy the acts of no public men or institution are or should be above criticism; but rational criticism must be based on 'reliable facts. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the press should not be unduly fettered in its plain duty of reporting the proceedings of public bodies, provided such reports are fair and published in good faith. It is sometimes neccs'sary in the public interest that the light of day should be thrown upon dark corners, and this cannot always be done without questioning the character and conduct of individuals. The law of libel therefore steps in and defines the circumstances in which this may be legally done, and fixes the conditions under which the publication in good faith of defamatory matter may be lawful. Thcso are tho main principles underlying any just libel law,- and the Bill under discussion appears to give effect to them in a reasonable manner and with due regard to the various interests concerned. Defamation is defined as an imputation concerning any person by which his reputation may be injured, or by which he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade, or held up to ridicule and despised. The publication of such defamation without justification, or lawful excuse should manifestly be punished. The principal test of justification is of course the welfare of t'lie community, or, to use the ordinary legal term, the "public interest." On this ground protection has been given in all British communities to reports of the proceedings'of Parliament and the Courts of law, and a year or two ago the New Zealand Legislature accorded this privilege to fair accounts of the debates of local authorities and bodies constituted by Act for the discharge of [ oublic functions. An important

feature of the new Bill is the furthor extension of this protection to a fair and accurate report of the proceedings of a public meeting so far as they relate to matters of public concern. Such a privilege might bo abused if allowed to stand without restriction or qualification, and might conceivably be used unscrupulously by unscrupulous persons. To guard effectually against this it is provided that any publication to which exception may bo taken on the ground of. defamation must bo made in good faith, and without malice for the information of the public. As a natural sequence fair comment on such proceedings and other matters of public interest defined in the Bill is made lawful, including comment upon the public conduct of persons taking part in public affairs and other public officials, and upon the character- of such persons so far as it appears in that conduct. Such provisions are based upon the broad principle,, amply verified by the verdict of history, that it is for the good of the community that the conduct of people who hold public positions should be subjected to the closest scrutiny and the fullest criticism, provided that it is fair, without malice, and capable of being justified from the point of view of tho welfare of the i Stats. Such criticism is one of the most potent factors in maintaining a high standard of public life. The new Bill also contains a number of provisions dealing with the hearing of actions for defamation, with tne object of improving the procedure and discouraging frivolous and vexatious litigation; and it is expressly stated that nothing in the Bill relates to what is known as "slander of title," or to the offence of publishing a blasphemous or seditious or obscene libel. Taken altogether, the Bill is an improvement on the present law, and the legitimate rights of individuals appear to be carefully safeguarded; but diis aspect of the matter should receive close attention when the Bill is in Committee. It would, of course, be absurd to approach such a measure from the party standpoint, and it is to_ be hoped that members of all parties will combine to make the Bill as perfect as possible before it reaches the Statute Book. No respectable newspaper desires to have the right to . inflict wrongs upon anybody; all that is required is the privilege of publishing for tho information of the people fair reports of matters of public concern, and of fairly commenting thereon. Unless the press has this privilege it must be seriously hampered in doing its duty to the community without fear or favour.