Defame and they’ll be a Claim!- Journalists and the Law of Defamation

When researching celebrity slander and libel cases, it is surprisingly common to see how many cases appear online. A vast number of high-status public figures have been victims to defamation and, as a result, have sued those who have risked their social standing.

 The BBC states “the law of defamation allows individuals, groups of individuals, companies or firms to sue for damage to their reputation. You can defame someone by publishing material in various forms and people can sue so long as the material can be reasonably understood to be referring to them.”

 To me, one of the most prominent examples involved Keira Knightley and an anorexia libel claim back in 2007. The actress accepted £3,000 High Court libel damages after The Daily Mail published a story about a 19-year-old girl who had died as a result of the eating disorder. The article, headed "If pictures like this one of Keira carried a health warning, my darling daughter might have lived", was published alongside images of Knightley in a bikini on holiday.

 The claim was supported by Knightley’s solicitor who said the paper suggested she had an eating disorder and held some responsibility towards the girl's death. Additionally, the story came only a few days after the newspaper had already targeted Knightley’s weight under the headline “It's itsy bitsy teeny weeny Keira Knightley”. By tackling such a sensitive topic in a tactless way that highlights the negative sides of celebrity culture, The Daily Mail could be seen to jeopardise the actress’ reputation.

 Nowadays, the stigma around anorexia is widespread in relation to celebrity culture and female role models. With negative connotations surrounding the illness, female celebrities can constantly be seen in the press in regards to body image. Despite the defendant claiming the article was of public interest and alerted mothers to the dangers of anorexia, The Daily Mail lost the case. Knightley matched the £3,000 she was given before donating it to the charity Beat which helps sufferers of mental illness.

Knightley's slim figure was emphasised as she was captured on holiday in a bikini.
http://s1041.photobucket.com/user/SweeterYet/media/Kiera%20Knightly/keira-knightley-anorexia-1-23-07.jpg.html

 But how can journalists prove a story is of public interest without being sued for damaging a celebrity’s reputation? In this case, I think it was clear The Daily Mail placed Keira Knightley in a position which suggested she had been a poor role model for the deceased young girl. By using pictures of the actress that emphasised the shape of her body, the article could be seen to highlight that young girls aspire to her unrealistically thin form. I believe it was right for the newspaper to emphasise the dangers of anorexia through the reporting of the girl’s death, but to attach Knightley to the article was unnecessary and harmful to the celebrity’s reputation. There’s a thin line between what journalists claim to be of public interest and what content can be sued by celebrities, but this is an issue that all journalists have to face.