基督教, 故事

抽刀斷水

正生會控《壹週刊》誹謗
2010-04-24

【明報專訊】早前高調召開記者會宣布廉署對該會已結束調查的基督教正生會，日前入稟高院，指《壹週刊》去年8月刊登的封面故事含誹謗成分，報道不單損害該會聲譽、導致捐款大減（抽按：that's the key point!），亦令該會成為廉署調查對象，要該會多次開記者會澄清，要求《壹週刊》賠償所有損失。

原訴為基督教正生會有限公司、正生會行政總監林希聖，以及正生書院校長陳兆焯，控告壹週刊出版有限公司及總編輯李科儀，指被告於去年8月13日出版題為「正生2000萬投資雞竇」的封面故事，含大量失實及誹謗的報道。

原訴透露，報道刊登後不單令原訴們聲譽受損，林及陳兩人要承受被公眾藐視、令兩人尷尬的壓力，亦令正生會的捐款大減，並影響該會經營的「正生樂滿堂」、「正生廣告」等公司生意，甚至遭廉署對該會作出一連串調查，原訴因而要聘用律師索取法律意見、多次召開記者會澄清，以及聘請核數師等。原訴認為以上一切損失及費用均應由被告負責。

【入稟編號﹕HCA563/10】

http://news.sina.com.hk/cgi-bin/nw/show.cgi/3/1/1/1497968/1.html

dye

"4. reference to the plaintiff - 擺明講緊正生，冇野好講"
http://www.hkclic.org/en/topics/ ... defamed/index.shtml

People may think that if they do not include the name of a person they are maligning in an article, but only give a thorough description of the person (e.g. his height and weight, the places that he frequents and the things that he had done), that person would have difficulty proving that the article refers to him.

In these circumstances, the court will consider to whom the author's original intent is referring, and whether ordinary readers will think that the author is referring to that person after reading the article. If that person's friends and others can reasonably infer that the article refers to him, then the article in question will be considered to refer to that person.

也就是說，講明正生告得，唔講明一樣告得。如果講出黎受害人朋友都知，唔講出名一樣告得。

------------------
此外
http://www.hkclic.org/en/topics/defamation/conveying_defamatory_matter/q1.shtml

If one person speaks to another person once, this counts as one publication. When the latter repeats the same thing to yet another person, it is a second publication. The second publication is a fresh instance of defamation (if the content is defamatory).
Merely quoting other people's words is regarded in law as publication. If the words are defamatory, the one who merely repeated those words is liable for defamation. No matter how many times the words are repeated, each repetition is one instance of defamation.

http://www.hkclic.org/en/topics/defamation/conveying_defamatory_matter/q7.shtml

At common law, some protection is given to persons who are not the author, printer or the first or main publisher of defamatory materials. There is also a statutory defence under section 25(5) of the Defamation Ordinance for unintentional defamation if the defendant (i.e. the publisher) can prove that:

....
all reasonable care has been taken by the publisher to avoid any defamatory material in the publication; AND

....

Generally speaking, when defamatory materials have been left on a website by internet users, that website (or the person/company/internet service provider in charge of it) may be liable as the publisher of said defamatory materials if they take no action to remove the defamatory materials from the website .

抽刀你得小心在意。如果基督徒真的如此喜歡告人，這裏也有「問題」

dye

My text book said

"Fair comment
To have a a defence of fair comment, five conditions must be satisfied
1) It was on a matter of public interest
2) It was recognizable as a comment and not an imputation of fact
3) It was based on facts which were true or protected by absolute privilege
4) The comment explicitly or implicitly indicated at least in general terms what the facts were on which the comment was made
5) Such comments would be made by an honest person"

For
1) It probably is because the school is trying to get government funding
2) Probably not.  It is presented as facts...
3) The fact that the company is registered at the location is probably true
4) The comment did say that it is base on the registered location
5) Depends on how the judge define 'honest' (Or what Next Magazine have to say)

For 嚴重程度, 「正生2000萬投資雞竇」,雞竇 is a "crime punishable by imprisonment"  Even if it is slander, there will be no need to show actual harm.

Jennifer

佢真係告至好wor...我等住佢地上court有戲睇架...

廢物

本教科書係手邊，當做下exercise先
1. defamatory statement - 齋標題都夠影響ordinary reasonable person眼中o既正生會形象
2. 報導屬libel - 唔駛prove loss都告得，不過而家佢話有loss就係賠款問題啦
3. meaning of the statement - 要睇晒成篇報導先知，因為呢D野要逐句打咁滯，不過齋「雞竇」算popular innudendo
4. reference to the plaintiff - 擺明講緊正生，冇野好講
5. publication - 又係唔駛講
defence
1. truth/justification - 睇fact啦又係，未睇過篇報導唔知道
2. public interest - 要睇報導指控嚴重程度、報導內容性質、報導時個資料搜集過程、有冇向當事人求過證、報導個tone同報導個timing等等，即係話等上court比fact啦