Well, the right of correction. It may be if there's a dispute about the facts that a reply is the appropriate way to deal with it, and very often there's no dispute about the facts. But if there were to be a dispute about the facts, the court would say, "Well, we're not going to enter into that, but you can have a reply. You can set out what your version is."
The court may say -- I mean, of course if the position is the -- it is said by a newspaper of a notorious criminal, "They are a notorious criminal", and the notorious criminal asks for a correction, the newspaper says, "No, because what we said was right, and we're not going to give you a right of reply", and the court says, "We're not going to give you anything because you are a notorious criminal."
It's not an absolute right. But again the idea behind this is that -- to enhance the rights of individuals against non-participants, so that non-participants can't get off scotfree with inaccurate reporting, so that there's some additional remedy that individuals have against non-participant publishers.
As you know from the history of Clive Soley's bill and so on, this is exactly the kind of provision that the media don't like. It's something that they find uncomfortable, being forced to publish replies or corrections, and the idea is to make it uncomfortable.