The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

I think if you look at it in the same way that any other civil tort is brought to court. I mean, it's required of the claimant to show that some harm, some real harm has taken place. I think if we inherit what we've developed in libel law over the last 800 years, where we have a reverse burden of proof and we don't expect the claimant to show harm -- I mean, in the libel reform campaign we press very hard that there needs to be serious and substantial harm for a libel action to be brought, and I guess we do begin then by asking the claimant in a privacy case, for instance, to show that some real harm has taken place or conceivably will take place as a result of publication.

To that extent, I suppose, you are then presuming -- you know, free speech is the presumptive right, and then if that harm is established, then you may want to ask the defendant in such a case --

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech