Throughout our symposium today we got onto the topic of our freedom when writing critically of their work. The question more specifically was:

How much freedom do we have when writing critically of others or other’s work before we become liable for defamation or copyright infringement?

Defamation is where I am particularly interested in this.

Defamation is: the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government, religion or nation.

So where is the line where a critique comes an opinion and I am legally liable for it? Adrian concluded that making any negative comments on our blogs is just a bad idea and to stay away from it altogether… however I couldn’t help but delve deeper into this considering it is also a major debate in my Journalism Ethics & Regulations class and something that could be greatly affecting me in my future career.

When it comes to journalism, there is an understanding that it is a journalist’s responsibility to inform the public of information, which it is their right to know. Law does not bind them to this, but it is a foundation on which the profession stands. So when a journalist owns information that is defamatory, but valuable to the public and their right to information…what happens?

I would like to think that if I follow the road of journalism, I will always stay ethical and not commit a crime of defamation but its just not that easy.

For me, I like to think I could weigh up the value of the person’s reputation vs. the importance of the publishing of this information. Will the public’s knowledge of this aid them in some way or another?

Blogging I see as a bit different and personally I believe all those, as I call them, Facebook Warriors out there badmouthing everything and everyone is absolutely absurd. However, what happens when the information or opinion we are sharing is of importance?

Something interesting to ponder.