"peterwn" wrote in message
oups.com...

GB wrote:

I cannot think of any cases where it is worth bringing a defamation
action.
Ever.

The damages are never worth the effort. The publicity from the case can
be
worse than the original defamation.

There are some instances where it may be worthwhile. For example in
New Zealand a radio personality said on air that the Prime Minister's
son had been busted by the police for drugs. There was not a grain of
truth in the statement. Daddy made sure the son sued and he got an out
of court settlement and the personality's scalp. As a staff member of
the broadcaster said to me privately, what can you do in such cases but
sack the person and settle the best you can.

How much is the damages for falsely saying a teenager had been busted for
drugs? Not much, because there's a presumption these days that most
teenagers have tried some sort of drugs. The former president of the USA
admitted that he had!

And there's always the possibility the radio station defends the action by
bringing in a whole host of people to say they have seen the lad smoking
dope, but agreeing he had not actually been arrested for it. Damage to the
Prime Minister almost as bad as the original libel/slander.

It was a high risk strategy, but he got away with it.


There are cases where the defamation may be so gross (ie completely
false and harmful) as to cause serious potential harm to the person
defamed, that there may almost be no option for the victim to sue, or
at least to take some form of legal action even if it is merely to seek
a retraction, apology and a donation to charity.


I don't agree. It's nearly always better simply to issue a denial. As an
example, the NOW apparently libelled a certain Scottish MP, but:
1. Most people didn't read the NOW article, whereas virtually everyone in
the country heard about the evidence in the libel action he brought
2. He only won by a small majority verdict of the jury
3. Many people are not convinced about the verdict.

Quite frankly he's not cleared his name at all, just fanned the smoke around
a bit, so more people think there's some flames there than before. Despite
his bravado about the verdict, I thought it was an own goal.

He spent several weeks of his life in court and God knows how many months
beforehand preparing the case. That's a personal toll for him.

In my view, he should have just issued a denial or ignored it.

The trouble with legal proceedings is that it just gives the libeller a
second chance to repeat the claims in court, backed up with evidence. The
damage to reputation is never mended by legal action, and the damages are
rarely worth the effort.