The Feilding Star. THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1890. The Law of Libel

Feilding Star, Volume XI, Issue 126, 17 April 1890, Page 2

The Feilding Star. THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1890. The Law of Libel

:♦ ~ ' In the hope that during the next session of Parliament Ministers may be induoed to make some amendments in the present law of libel, we notice that several of our cpntemporaries have commenced to draw attention to the hardships newspaper proprietors are liable under existing laws. It will be remembered that last session a measure was introduced to the House, but, as we predicted would happen before the Bill was even, read, the members of the legal profession, who have seats in Parliament, fought hard against the bill and succeeded in having it burked for the time, because they felt that either they, or some of their brothers of the long robe outside, would be thereby deprived of a portion of their means oi livelihood. Our contemporary the Wellington Press had an able article on the sub- ; ject a few days ago, and in urging the desireableness of a relief from responsibility being afforded to the press in certain instances, pointed out it is the press which is the first to suffer from any ambiguities of this law. It is absurd that a journalist should be privileged to publish papers presented to Parliament, but subject to an action for libel should he cpmment on them. Or, as in the case of a Taranaki journal which ccmmitted a " technical libel," by publishing a parliamentary paper in its advertising celumns. It is equally absurd that a journalist should be at liberty to publish a parliamentary debate but be liable to an action if he should assume the statement of a Minister of the Crewn to be correct and venture to comment upon it. Yet this is the law at present. It is manifestly in the public interest that all 'that takes place at public meetings should be publishable without risk to the journalist so far as what is published is matter of public concern, We do not hesjtate to say that. ,a journalist at present most undoubtedly discharges; his duty to the publio at no inconsiderable risk to himself, and that he does not of toner find his way into Court ie owing to the excessive cautipu whioh is used— a caution which we believe is by no means unfrequently exeroised at the cost of the public interest. It is safer for , a journalist to pass over many things, to consult, in fact, his own safety, rather than to consider whether, the public good would be best served by exposure. If anyone -should be punished for a libel in a speech in Parliament or at a publio meeting it is the speaker, not the newspaper which publishes the speech in good , faith and to conserve the interests of the public.