The Daily News. THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1914. LIBEL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 53, 23 July 1914, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, JULY 23, 1914. LIBEL.

The fiovinmient is tu lie congratulated upon In down the Defamation Bill, which gives such freedom of comment and criticism anil permits of the publication of reports of public meetings as are needful in the public interest. Kor years New Zealand, which is commonly held to be in the van in all things, lias lagged 'behind in the matter of freeing its Press from burdensome restrictions. Conservative England and the Australian States have all more just and liberal libel laws than we have, 'but both tlie Seddon and Ward (lovernments persistently rc'fuscd to remove the shackles. It has been left to Mr. Hcrdman to give the New Zealand Press the same measure of protection as obtains in the countrie« mentioned. In the course of the debate on the second reading of the Bill, air Joseph Ward and other members of the Opposition raised the point that the Press was well able to look kfter itself in the present condition of the. law. This may be, for the simple reason that the Press will take no risk, and as a consequence many matters that should lie ventilated and criticised never see the light of day. Is this in the public interest? The Leader of the Opposition stated tliat if the proposed amendments to the law were carried the doof would be opened to .unrestricted libel of public men. There need be no fear of the Press abusing its power in this way. The highest interests of the public demand the freest scope for criticism. The 'Press, after all, is but the mouthpiece of the public. The Press endeavors to protect'the interests of the public, but in turn it should have reasonable protection by the law. That is what is now being asked, that and nothing more. It does not desire any special privilege or license, but it should be protected from the exploitation of unscrupulous adventurers and out-and-out blackmailers whom it may, in the public interest, have occasion to "show up." Nothing is more deterring to sharp practice or evil doing that the fear of newspaper publicity. The average transgressor does not mind so much appearing in a court of law, but he most certainly does mind his name being published in the newspapers.' Hardly a week passes without a request being made of the average daily newspaper to "please keep my name out of the paper." A newspaper at present is under no small risk in reporting public meetings. This and other anomalies are to be swept away. A man of straw might bring an action for libel against a paper. The Bill provides that in such a case proceedings shall be stayed, by a Judge in Chambers, until security is given for defendant's costs, in case the notion fails. In court oases reports of the proceedings in which defamatory statements may be made are published a( the newspaper's risk. The Bill provides that publication in good faith of such matter is lawful, within certain bounds. Fair comment at present is not always lawful; it is to be made lawful in future. The law as it stands allows a Parliamentary return to be reproduced in extenso without any responsibility for what h contains, but does not grant the same privilege respecting extracts from the return. This is to he altered. At present a member of Parliament may make any statement he likes on the llcor of the House; but u newspaper, if it publishes a report of his statements, risks an action for libel. This anomaly is to be removed and a measure of protection given the papers when the matter reported is in the public interest, it not being nedessary to prove its truth. A cardinal point in the Bill is that it is a good defence in an action for defamation that the matter is true. The maxim has it that "the greater the truth the greater the libel," and many journalists have found it to be so to their cost. \'o paper, of

course. jdiouM have unrestricted power to malign a man's reputation. Reputation and character must ever be held sacred and inviolable to the individual. The disparagement and ruination of a man's good name is infinitely worse than an attack \ipon his property. The latter can be replaced; the other cannot. Adequate safeguards of reputation, however, arc provided for in the Bill, which we trust will 'become law, and so emancipate the Press from a condition that in an enlightened age should not have been permitted to exist so long.