
Advertisement
Advertisement

Korieh: As a lawyer, I can’t speculate on whether the story is fictitious or not. It may be that this is a real story and the people involved told the newspaper they wanted to use fictitious names. In which case, the fact that they aren’t traceable by searching would be easily explained. The photo could be posed by models.But if they just found the picture on Getty Images, bought it legally, but worked it into this weird context, then could these two photo subjects sue?
If a newspaper takes two people’s photo and uses it to concoct a defamatory story around, then yes, those people can sue. But I would doubt very much whether that is what they have done. I would imagine that they have extracted specific consent from the photo subjects if they wanted to publish something like this.Our Verdict: Perfectly legal and not in any way false, even if it might seem like the Sport are using the pictures of out-of-work character actors from fourth-tier ITV dramas.
Advertisement

Korieh: Well, if the guy photographed is a real-life homeless person innocently sat on the street begging, an allegation of bestiality could be very seriously defamatory. But that’s very unlikely. The likelihood is that they’ve asked him to consent to it. Money may have changed hands for the right to use his image in a certain way.Would it matter if they’d got his photo and paid him for it, then altered the context in which they used the photo? For instance, they told him it was a story about him eating his dog, but then they went for the sucking-off angle?
That would definitely matter. You have to obtain "informed consent". Take your girls on their three-way Smeeting date, who ended up being pixellated in the final piece even though you’d pre-arranged to take photos.I’d rather not.
If they’d agreed to go on a date, and assumed that it would be with like-minded guys, and they get there and there’s a goth and Mr Christmas, then they might say that even though they’d consented to be photographed on that date, the consent is now void. And publishing a story about someone out on a date is a potential infringement of their privacy, which is why consent is important.
Advertisement
There’s an Obscene Publications Act in England and Wales. That has certain rules about what is permissible to sell to the public in a national newspaper. The test is whether the publication "is likely to corrupt or deprave a section of the public".That’s pretty antiquated.
It is. The law is mainly used for prosecuting offences concerning child pornography and such material. As regards soft porn, the reality is there are very few cases brought in relation to stuff published in a national newspaper. After all, for a long time there have been publications that talk about these things, so it would be difficult to point to it "corrupting or depraving" when it is already out there. Don’t forget, we had Rebecca Loos on TV not so long ago pleasuring a pig – deemed by Ofcom not to be in breach of its taste and decency regulations. Britain is fairly liberal in these matters.Our verdict: Perfectly legal and not in any way false, even if this story might get you wondering about how easy it would be to find a professional actor, ex-RADA, who specialises in harrowing portrayals of a homeless man who has been forced to suck off a dog.

Advertisement
Korieh: It’s a very big hypothetical. Especially as in English law, technically, there is no copyright in an idea. You make an adaptation, and you can get away with it. But there would be a line to be crossed if in so doing you were defaming someone. For instance, a former client of mine was a film producer, and someone wrote a novel in which he literally swapped the first letters of this guy’s names, and then fictionalised a story in which the producer was supposed to have murdered someone else. Needless to say, my client won some quite hefty damages. The book was pulped.Our verdict: Perfectly legal and not in any way false. Although you'd imagine that even in the unlikely event it were false, Putin would currently have bigger fish to fry.

Advertisement
Korieh: No. Under English law a public body like the EU can't sue for defamation. There is a public policy in allowing robust (and even false) criticism of town councils and other public bodies. The idea is that it is better to allow free expression over such institutions than to enable them to sue to protect their reputations.Our verdict: Again, perfectly legal and not in any way false.

Korieh: No, I don’t think a company would have any complaint since his actions are bonkers and no one would think the less of the company for serving piping hot pasties. Perhaps they could complain if there was any suggestion they do not warn people their pasties are hot, but there isn’t.
Advertisement
No.Seriously?
Not unless this guy is unfortunate enough to have consented to a story about how much he loves pasties, only for him to be spun into a pasty-fiddler. But even then, we have a threshold of seriousness for defamation claims, under the Defamation Act 2013 that came into force at the beginning of this year. You can have a claim thrown out if it does not cause “serious harm” to the person’s reputation.Our Verdict: Perfectly legal and not in any way false. Also, always wear a condom when fucking a pasty.

Korieh: It depends. If you simply make up a fact, such as "Malaysian aeroplane found on the moon" – is there a legal issue there? Probably not. The National Enquirer has been doing that for years. Remember that while the public is misled, in order for something to be actionable in law, it has to result in damage to an individual or a company. If you’re not damaging someone, then you can pretty much do what you like. Of course there are public order laws, incitement laws and other restrictions on material that might cause panic, riot, or other genuine harm to society. If the Malaysian disaster was closer to home, or something like Hillsborough was trivialised in an English newspaper story, that might be a different matter.
Advertisement
It’s very unlikely that a class action over a newspaper article can succeed. Primarily because in order to bring a claim, you would need to show you had a legal relationship with the newspaper and that some harm had been done. Would you say it’s a breach of contract? That would imply that truthfulness in news was part of what you thought you were buying when you bought the Sport. But the Sport would say that you wouldn’t have any expectation of truthfulness. You’d expect to be entertained. Also, in a breach of contract you’d have to be able to show that you’d suffered some loss. And it’s a pretty trivial claim if you’re claiming the pound a day you spent buying the paper.If you wanted to show negligence, well, is there a duty of care between a newspaper and its readers?
It is one thing to sue a sat nav company for sending you over a cliff. It is another to sue a newspaper because you believed something you read in there. It would be an interesting case, though!Our verdict: The Sport is the Onion for wanking British lorry drivers, run by a gang of satirical geniuses, with the help of a very skilled and tired lawyer.@gavhaynesThis article was edited at 11.06AM on Wednesday, 16th April to reflect the fact the Daily Sport closed in 2011, not 2009.More of this kind of stuff:The Sunday Sport's Website Is Really Weird"All Grown Up": Sexing Up the Internet with the Daily MailThe Tatler List Is Utterly Insane
