( 61 ) CHAPTER VI. 'WHAT ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST? THE discussion of matters of public interest is privileged so long as it is fair, moderate, and honest. Under the head of "privileged reports," and what is “fair comment," cases have been and will be cited illustrating these general principles, but under the above special section a few words may be added. The effect and bearing of all judicial decisions is to hold that what are matters of public interest may be fairly divisible into the following seven classes, and, while they may not comprehend all possible cases, certainly nothing coming under them can be held not to be a matter of public interest. They are :— 1. Political matters and affairs of State. 2. The administration of justice. 3. Public institutions and the acts of local authorities. 4. Ecclesiastical and religious matters. 5. Any book, picture, painting, piece of sculpture or other work of art that has been published. 6. Theatres, concerts, dramatic and other public representations. 7. Charitable or philanthropic movements when appealing to the public or dependent upon public rates or subscriptions. Anything touching these several matters and topics. may fairly and safely be discussed. In the Queen's Bench Division last year, before Huddleston, B., and a special jury, a very interesting case arose in which the issue as to what is a "matter of public interest" was raised and determined very clearly. The article complained of appeared in the Liverpool Evening Express, and was undoubtedly libellous. But, as the judge remarked, "all libellous matter was not actionable, as for, instance, in a newspaper where matter of public interest was fairly commented upon. The press had a right and ought properly to have the right to comment forcibly and vigorously upon all matters of public interest. Such comment, so long as it was fair and honest, was useful to all, and every one was more or less exposed to it, especially men in a public position. Therefore, so long as the Press did not go beyond the limits of fairness and indulge in malice or personal abuse, it was protected. It was part of their duty as jurymen to protect the Press in cases where they considered it had acted fairly and honestly, and in the public interest. The subject matter of the libel was of public and local interest, and if the article was a fair and bona fide comment upon a public matter of public and local interest where defendant's newspaper circulated and was published boná fide and without malice and for the benefit of the public and without any malicious intent or motive, their verdict must be for the defendants." The jury found for the defendants (Riordan v. Wilcox and Others, 4 T'. L. R. 475). It is undoubted that, unless the Press were protected and safeguarded in its exercise of this right, all public discussion would be at an end, and the result would be injurious to the public; for, in the immunity from honest criticism that would result, jobbery, peculation, and every species of neglect of public duty PUBLIC MEN MUST ACCEPT CRITICISM. 63 would be encouraged and protected. “A clergyman with his flock, an admiral with his fleet, a judge with his jury are all subjects of public discussion. Whoever fills a public position renders himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary appendage to his office," was the dictum of Bramwell, J., in the case of Kelly v. Sherlock (L. R. 1 Q. B.), and he did not push the penalty of publicity or the privilege of the Press too far. It is a wholesome, necessary, and useful check and corrective on injustice, extravagance, or neglect of public duty by those paid or who undertake to discharge that duty. 66 Every man," said Lord Ellenborough, in Carr and Hood (1 Camp. 337), "who publishes a book commits himself to the judgment of the public, and any one may comment upon his performance. If the commentator does not step aside from the work or introduce fiction for the purpose of condemnation he exercises a fair and legitimate right, but if he follows the author into domestic life for the purpose of slander that will be libellous. The critic does a great service to the public who writes down any vapid or useless publication which ought never to have appeared. He checks the dissemination of bad taste and prevents people from wasting both their time and money upon trash. I speak of fair and candid criticism, and this every one has a right to publish although the author may suffer a loss, but it is such a loss the law does not consider an injury, and such a loss he ought to sustain. It is a loss of fame and profit to which he never was entitled." And Lord Kenyon in Dibdin v. Swan (1 Esp. 26) stated that "the editor of a public newspaper may fairly and candidly comment upon any place or species of public entertainment, but it must be done without malice nor with a view to injure or prejudice the proprietor in the eyes of the public. If fairly done, however severe the censure, the justice of it screens the editor from legal animadversion, but, if it can be proved that the comment was malevolent and exceeded the bounds of fair opinion, then it is a libel and actionable." This was clearly illustrated in the case of Harvey v. Society Herald Co. (Limited). The plaintiff was a clown in a pantomime, and certain comments on his conduct as such were the subject of the libel, as they conveyed the impression that his performances were unfit to be seen by children, "filthy conduct" being spoken of. Defendants pleaded fair comment, absence of malice and the truth of the libels, that the words did not bear the meaning attributed to them, that they were published without gross negligence, and that before action an apology was inserted. The jury nevertheless found for plaintiff in 2007., as they considered the apology insufficient and insincere (Queen's Bench Division June, 1888). The case of Ginnett v. The Pall Mall Gazette is a very significant commentary upon the shortcomings of the Libel Act, and its failure to protect a journalist in the exercise of his profession. That journal severely but not unduly criticised the cruel treatment of children employed in acrobatic performances, and for its comments upon a matter of public interest was heavily mulcted in 1500l. damages. The case was tried early this year, before Field, J., and a jury. The result of the finding was that this unusually intrepid journal refused subsequently to publish certain disclosures respecting similarly harsh treatment accorded a child named Curragh sent them by her father. The just remarks of the editor upon the subject are not VERDICT RESTRAINING PUBLIC CRITICISM. 65 wholly inappropriate in this connection. In its issue We of the 24th June the Pall Mall Gazette writes:hope that the case of the father of the girl acrobat who slew the manager of the Letine troupe will lead juries to take a more reasonable view of the responsibilities of journalists than they have done of late years. But for the damages of 1500l. inflicted upon this journal for printing a letter from an Oxford undergraduate stating that some boy acrobats had been trained by torture in a certain circus, there would probably have been no murder at Lambeth on Friday. The unfortunate man who was driven mad by his inability to procure any publicity for the sufferings of his daughter in the troupe, would probably have retained his senses, and abstained from homicide, if he had but had an opportunity of publishing his grievance. It was the bitter conviction of the utter impossibility of making the wrongs which his child suffered known to the world that drove him to the desperate deed over which all are moralising to-day. But for the verdict in the Ginnett case, he might have had the satisfaction for which he longed. As it was, the ruinous damages awarded by the jury rendered it little short of suicidal for any newspaper to give publicity to his grievance. We are now face to face with the result. Letine has not been 'libelled' by the publication of the way in which the child was done to death. But he has been killed, and, on the whole, he has not much reason to be satisfied with the result of the protection which the law of libel secures to men in his position." Comments upon the Administration of Justice. It is now conceded that comments upon the administration of the law, the verdicts of juries in cases, the conduct of suitors (after trial), or of the witnesses F |
