It sounds like they edited it out, possibly after legal threats? I'm not sure how they think they would get in trouble for quoting something that was actually said.

[–] Xcf456 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You can be found liable for defamation just by repeating what was said, so yeah RNZ removed the references and none of the other stories about it have published what he said https://defamationupdate.co.nz/legal-guide-publication/

[–] Dave 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that's quite the situation. If you told someone I was a fraud, then they told others I was a fraud, that person wouldn't be protected.

However, RNZ is not making claims about they guy, they would be saying that Winston made claims about the guy, which is a true statement easily provable.

I'd guess that this might be a line RNZ just aren't willing to test since court cases are expensive even if you don't lose.

[–] Xcf456 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I dunno, depends what 'repeating' it means. It sounds like just reporting on it might be a defense, but I could see a big loophole if you couldn't be touched for effectively picking up and amplifying the original claim with some qualifying words around it.

But I think you're right that they won't want to find out in court in any case.

Yes. The law applies what is known as the ‘repetition rule’ (or ‘republication rule’). Under this rule, the liability of a person who repeats a rumour or allegation is no different to the person who first made the statement. This includes rumours or allegations that come from reputable sources like the Police or news sites. This aspect of the law has some wriggle room when it comes to establishing defences. But for at least the element of publication, anyone who repeats a defamatory statement is liable.

[–] Dave 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

but I could see a big loophole if you couldn’t be touched for effectively picking up and amplifying the original claim with some qualifying words around it.

I think there's a huge difference between an article stating "John Smith a fraudster" and then backing it up by using Winston as a source (which is what I believe your quoted part is for), vs an article that says "In parliament on Wednesday NZ First Leader Winston Peters called John Smith a fraudster". RNZ aren't actually claiming the things that Winston said, so in my view there would be no case against them, but now I think about it RNZ probably got a cease and desist and didn't think it was worth fighting over (which it's not).

[–] Xcf456 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Nah that's not enough apparently

What if the publisher just reporting what someone else said?

The rule is: whoever reports it is liable for it. Even if it’s from an apparently reputable and knowledgeable source, such as the police. The publisher has to prove the truth of the sting of the article, remember. That’s what the readers or viewers will take it to mean. It’s not enough for the publisher to prove that it has reported the accusation accurately. It must be able to prove that the accusation itself is true.

What if the publisher writes “alleged”?

This is just a fancy way of saying “I’m reporting what someone else has said” – so the same answer applies. Sprinkling a story with the word “alleged” or “rumoured” doesn’t insulate the publisher from a defamation lawsuit. The publisher is still passing on someone else’s allegation or gossip.

https://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=273

[–] Dave 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Now I'm wondering how we can have a media at all!

This bit is interesting (about what defamation is):

where no defence (usually truth, opinion, or qualified privilege) is available

So even if it was said outside of parliamentary privilege, Winston could just say it's his opinion. But the media could get in trouble for reporting he said it because it's not their opinion!

I'm sure it's structured this way for a reason, after all, rules are written in blood, but to an outsider it seems like it would prevent a lot of political news being published!

Now how come they can print that Julie Anne Genter yelled at a florist? They only have the florist's word. Its that enough to prove truth? We only have Winston's word about the other guy.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 2 points 6 months ago

So even if it was said outside of parliamentary privilege, Winston could just say it's his opinion

Not sure it works that way, you have to assert it's your opion when you say it.

[–] Xcf456 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I can see the intent of it and I think it does have merit, but access to the courts is expensive and therefore inequitable so it is open to 'lawfare' or abuse by powerful people, so you can have a chilling effect on media.

They'll print about JAG because they don't see a risk of being taken for defamation I suppose? Perhaps if she threatened it it might be a different story. But again I guess they'll weigh up their defence as part of it. This is a lot of what lawyers employed by media agencies do I guess.

[–] Dave 1 points 6 months ago

Yeah it's interesting stuff. On one hand the media needs to have a high level of scrutiny so we can trust it. On the other hand we are getting a biased view because some are blocking articles while others aren't.