Law Lecture 3 - Defamation, Libel and Slander

Defamation, Libel and Slander: From what I've seen of other people’s notes on the lecture, the reading covered all of it! Beautiful! So here are the law notes for...

Defamation: Defamation is the act of injuring someone’s name or reputation. This is a 'civil' issue and is therefore between two parties and this is because that the persons reputation (street cred) is their property and to damage a reputation is to break the law. For example, Chris' rep is the Number 1 educator for journalism in the UK and Winchester bad-man, anyone to say otherwise would be accountable for defamation. When it comes to defamatory cases, the person suing only has to show a jury that on the Balance of probability the comment could affect their reputation - they don’t exactly need to prove anything.

Libel: Libel is a defamatory statement which is published in a permanent form and identifies a single person, for example in a newspaper. Libel = identification of someone + publication (online or in a newspaper etc) + defamation. By doing this you expose yourself to inciting hatred and contempt. This also causes the person being defamed to be shunned by the public or avoided altogether. It discredits them in their certain profession or business and this generally lowers them in the eyes of the law-abiding citizens of society. So basically, it’s a dick move if you get it wrong! this can affect their chances of being hired and so on as it will, as stated, ruin their reputation

There are defences that people can use to get themselves out of a libel or defamation charge, for example:

1) Justification - It is true and it can actually be proved (YES the truth, as I have mentioned, is the very best defence!)

2) Fair Comment - this is basically your own honest opinion, this is what I referred to as the double rainbow for journalists if I’m not mistaken! But then it could be argued that "what if your honest opinion changes?" well then you know, you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot - also referred to as Malice; this is saying something you don't believe to be true.

Well that should about cover it, I know I said that I wouldn't let it go too long without another blog post... thing about that is I might have lost track of the days or I might have been lying. Can't be sure! But now im actually gonna try and get on with this blogging business!
Stay classy, Winchester x

Law Lecture 2 - very very very late!

So there I am this weekend, filled with the intent to listen to radio 4, but then it dawned on me that the word "morning" doesn't exist when it comes to the weekend - talk about falling at the first hurdle! /sigh. Maybe I’ll be far more successful with my trip to Winchester Crown Court! What was looking for is an opening, a sentencing or a summing up by the judge - either way it sounds genuinely interesting. Anyway! Down to the notes!

During this lecture we've been told about something which is as amazing as a double rainbow - this is "Qualified Privilege" this means that you cannot be sued for what you say! Frankly, that sounds like the best thing ever, us journos must be in love with this, I know I am!

In any case, I have a feeling this is gonna be a very short blog post! This is because I believe I’ve mentioned most of the lectures key points in my older blog posts! This was also covered in the reading I’ve been doing.

Key Notes:

• Presumption of innocence "beyond all reasonable doubt"
• Magistrates court = Minor Cases
• Crown Courts = Major Cases
• Cases can be done in private - for example rape cases and cases that cover particularly sensitive issues are usually not made public
• Evidence based justice - this is the right to have the evidence given in a case tested by the jury; this is held up by a source of the UK constitution known as the Magna Carta.

Criminal Court: The Jury must give verdicts based on evidence given. There is no jury in a magistrates court, a Jury is only present in Crown court. While the Jury are involved in a case, they have to go through a media blackout. Which means that they must not watch the news, read newspapers, go online in anyway. This is because people writing articles on the case will condemn someone before the jury has reached a verdict - this is going to affect how the jury will vote if they've seen that people believe someone to be guilty or not.

High Court: "You can always judge how much trouble you're in depending on the length of the wigs" - Chris Horrie. Barristers are the ones who talk in the High courts - judges essentially act as arbiters in the high court - insofar as they decide on literally everything in a case. Such as: the evidence that can and can’t be put forward, to keep the court on track and not get distracted and, among others, once the jury has reached a verdict the Judge is the one that gives out the sentence - just tells to jury to go home.

Crown Court: Indictable cases are done by magistrates and this court hears appeals. If you've been charged with, for example, a fine for not having a parking ticket or something then you can, instead of paying the fine, appeal to have the case taken to a crown court - this is very time consuming.

Contempt of Court & Strict Liability: Contempt of court is a strict liability offence. 

Contempt of court = impeding the courts justice in anyway, for example shouting out from the "audience" or trying to sway the jury. Or as Chris put it, giving the death stare to a member of the jury saying "if you say guilty, I'm gonna get you". Strict Liability = you cannot use the defence "I didn't mean to" you have no excuse to get you out of a strict liability offence, such as drink driving.

Prejudice: Very important concept in Law, with people MUST NOT DO. It literally means to "pre-judge “something - so basically don’t jump to conclusion! Otherwise people will feel they are guilty before trail. A prime example of this would be the Joanna Yates case the media instantly targeted and pre-judged a man who basically looked "creepy" and probably was the guy who did it based on their appearance. Prejudice is pretty much Green Kryptonite, as in it makes Superman die *sad face* so it therefore kills court cases. So don’t do it yeah?

So yeah, thanks for reading! I’ll blog sometime soon and not let myself go this long without blogging ever again, promise... kinda :)

Bye and stuff x

History of Western Philosophy - Book one Seminar paper

Well after what seems like years and years of reading I’ve managed to get through the whole of book one in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, just in time too! Basically the whole of book one is split up into three parts; ranging from "The Pre-Socratics", "Socrates, Plato and Aristotle" and finally "Ancient Philosophy after Aristotle". Anyway! I'm going to note now that I’ve found it better to talk about them all in relation to each other! So, let’s get down to business and start off with...

 Part I: The Pre-Socratics: The people known as the pre-Socratics are from the city of Miletus in the region of Ionia. They are called so because they are the philosophical thinkers before Socrates, which formulated the basis of knowledge for future thinkers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. These people who are part of the pre-Socratics basically 'invented' philosophy which has come to be known as a 'love of wisdom'. Around about 600 BC the Milesian thinkers essentially discovered the process of speculation and dove right in and asked "what exists?" 

Here is where we come to our first key name, Thales. Thales seems to be the first known Greek philosopher, scientist and mathematician. He decided that all things in the universe were made up of water; this is particularly shocking to the people of the time as he didn’t account the "Gods" into any speculation as to how the universe was created. Importantly, he is known for never actually put any of his ideas down into writing or simply that any writings of him have long been forgotten or destroyed. Thales' main claim to fame, as it were, is down to the fact that he managed to predict when a solar eclipse would occur in 585 BC. It is widely speculated that he was actually the teacher of Anaximander.

This brings us to the next key name, Anaximander. He was another Milesian thinker but he actually rejected Thales, and argued instead about something called "the Boundless" as the source of all things. Anaximander's main theory was that the universe was not solely born from water and so on but it was a culmination of all the elements. He stated that the cold and wet condensed to form the earth. Then the heat and dryness formed the moon, sun and stars. The heat from the fire (the sun) dried the earth and then in turn shrank the seas. A very fascinating theory and he is noted for expressing a more plausible explanation for the origin of the natural world. Anaximander was discredited by Aristotle; according to Aristotle, Anaximander did not explain what he meant by “the Boundless".

Thales and Anaximander were more concerned with the "matter" of things. Pythagoras was said to be a disciple of Anaximander. He decided to try and find the nature of things through the workings of mathematics and geometry. The Pythagoreans (people who followed Pythagoras), discovered that musical scales could be explained through mathematics and that from this you can link it directly to the universe. Pythagoras decided to focus on "form" and not "matter" - leading from sense perception towards maths. Pythagoras even dabbled in creating his own religion and had his own followers

Parmenides, as his named suggests, 'pared' everyone off and questioned the views of the Ionian thinkers - believing that all things came from one substance. Parmenides thought to apply 'logic' to the arguments of the Pythagoreans. He is the seen as the chief thinker of the Eleatic philosophy. He is mostly seen as a follower of Xenophanes and Parmenides historically wrote after Heraclitus and directly opposed his ideas. Top effort.

This leads us to Heraclitus! This guy, whose name is totally Hercules... is actually the most important of all the Pre-Socratic thinkers; he is usually referred to as "the weeping philosopher" as he has a pessimistic view of human nature. Heraclitus wrote "On Nature". While Pythagoreans had emphasized harmony, Heraclitus suggested life was maintained by a tension of opposites, fighting a continuous battle in which neither side could dominate. Heraclitus came up with the idea of universal "Flux" and the unity opposites

'You cannot step twice in the same river'

Part II: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle: Socrates, quite possibly the most intellectual Athenian ever, like seriously this guy knows his stuff. He was the teacher of Aristotle (when he was about 60 years old). Socrates served in Peloponnesian Wars and many stories of him were told. Due to his love for thinking and philosophy he forgot about all other things and eventually began to live in poverty. He was unfortunately accused of impiety (not being religious) and put on trial because of it. He was later deemed guilty and sentenced to death, which is a massive shame! Good job guys, way to kill off like the smartest guy ever.

Plato is known as the best student of Socrates. Pretty much the majority of information we know about Socrates comes from Plato, as he was his most famous and prestigious student. Plato's greatest work is in "The Republic" This piece of work has often been seen as Plato's plans for a future utopian society. The Republic covers topics such as the nature of justice, statesmanship, ethics and the nature of politics. Plato discusses in The Republic topics such as what is knowledge? As in what is actually known, how do we know that things are actually true and finally what makes a thing, the actual thing?

Aristotle, yet again with more linkage, was the student of Plato. Again, he was Plato’s most valued and intellectual students. Unfortunately, Aristotle was also charged with impiety, however unlike Socrates, Aristotle decided to absolutely do one and bail on the whole court case thing.  Aristotle pretty much knew a great deal about nearly everything. He talks about Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, Physics and Logic. However, the one subject Aristotle didn’t get was mathematics. Plato, on the other hand, was a master of geometry. Plato and Aristotle constantly argued and Plato suggested that man was born with knowledge, Aristotle claims knowledge comes from experience. Aristotle argued that that there were Forms and Absolutes, but that they resided in the thing itself. When it comes to, for example, our experience with cats, we can deduce the essence of "catness".

Part III: Ancient Philosophy after Aristotle: Stoicism states that only Zeus, enjoys actually full on immortality, while the rest of the other Gods, who are totally lesser, (burn), are created at the starting cosmic cycle, but then joined with Zeus. In terms of the afterlife, it was commonly believed that if people were to I’ve virtuous and just lives they would die and be rewarded with the same immortality as the Gods. 

The Epicureans incorporated the soul and death into their ethical beliefs and how it affected their afterlife. However contrasting to Platonic ideas of death with rewards, mortality was instead the reward. They state that the fear of death is the main thing that plagues the human race, not death itself. The fear of death drives people to deal with their lives in a very fatalistic way. 

‘The correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes our mortality enjoyable, not by adding infinite time, but by taking away the yearning for immortality’ - Epicurus

After the Hellenistic period, philosophy once again fell under the sway of Plato and Aristotle, and old issues were revived. People began to believe again in Aristotle’s psychology - which states that no part or aspect of the individual human soul is immortal; this then went onto influence Christianity. 

So there you have it, I realise that I have missed things out - such as the Spartans and their amazing military forces, their egalitarian states and democracy. I hope (pray) this is sufficient; it’s in as note form as I can possibly go! 

Bye and stuff x

Greek Civilisation, The Dark Ages and Plato and Aristotle

Greek Civilisations: So this was quite possibly the most interesting lecture I’ve had so far, mostly because I'm highly intrigued by the Greeks - basically, the ancient Greeks knew where it was all at. Another little snippet from my old politics lessons taught me that the first forms of democracy came from ancient Greek civilisation. It was a very crude form of democracy what is commonly known as direct democracy - direct democracy is one of two forms of democracy and it entails the members of the civilisations grouping together to hold debates and vote in polls. The etymology of the word "democracy" broken down literally translates to the Greek words "demos" meaning people and "cratos" meaning power, very fitting for the word, and some nice politics background knowledge for you there!

So yeah, the Greeks were like amazingly smart for their time! This is very impressive when you think about how little was known about the world itself and the universe. The Greeks were viewed as the greatest thinkers, when you think of philosophers you'll instantly think about names such as Aristotle, Plato or Socrates. Greek origins have been very influential, in all aspects of life such as languages, architecture (for example the domed roof structures) and words. Put shortly, the Greeks were the bosses of everything - they managed to measure the Earth; top effort.

The Dark Ages: However, during a period known commonly as the Dark Ages or the Middle Ages, regrettably, silly people who refused to believe in pure, sound logic passed down by the Greeks, decided it'd be a "hilarious" idea to burn most of the knowledge and information the Greeks knew about the current world and solar system. Good job guys *slow sarcastic clap*. The Greeks and Romans were very similar to each other - they had the same amount of Gods that they worshiped and just called them different names, for example Greeks prayed to Zeus, the King of the Gods while the Romans equivalent is known to them as Jupiter and so on. 

However, over time the rulers of the Roman Empire became progressively corrupt and abandoned many of the beliefs that they learned from the Greeks and this ultimately lead to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Roman civilisation has been greatly linked to the Greeks however they were quite different in some respects. Most notably the Romans were pioneers of industry and creation while the Greeks were the most renowned thinkers and philosophers.

  

"By the beard of Zeus!"

(Yes im currently watching Anchorman)

Many people refer to a point in history known as the Golden (or Goldeen ;)) age of Islam, roughly stretching from 750 CE - c.1258 CE. The Golden Age is called so because philosophers and scientists of the Islamic world, through the process of preserving earlier traditions, (mostly passed down by the Greeks), learned from them and then added to them these traditions and practices with their own knowledge and innovations - which eventually leads us into what’s now referred to as the "Golden Age of Islam". This golden age gave birth to many superstitions and myth surrounding the Arabians, such as the idea that, since they were so intellectually, scientifically and technologically advanced, that they possessed the knowledge of immortal life, great towering buildings of gold and magic carpets! (More like Magikarp-ets)

Plato and Aristotle: Plato was Aristotle's teacher, therefore Plato and Aristotle were like total bros when it came to philosophy and pondering the universe. Aristotle basically "invented logic" and this was one of the main pieces of knowledge passed down by the Greeks and was successfully preserved by the Catholic Church. Aristotle's form of logic is known as a siligism - this provided the origin of knowledge. Aristotle came up with what he called Axioms, a basis of knowledge that allows us to know what is true from its characteristics and so on - I'll have to touch upon this more after I get some more reading done!

"All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal."

 This nugget of knowledge came from the Organon. The Organon is the name given by Aristotle's followers to the standard collection of his six works on logic:

• Categories
• On Interpretation
• Prior Analytics
• Posterior Analytics
• Topics
• Sophistical Refutations

 I've actually found pretty entertaining clips on YouTube about Aristotle - I advise you to check them out, the video is 3 minute philosophy and there are loads of them out there, they're funny so don't worry. Check them out! Here’s the link to Aristotle's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm0Uq08xXhY

Stay classy, Winchester x

Getting on the blog

Yes its blogging time yet again! after being particularly lazy (hanging) over the past two days that I planned to post in my blog I feel it’s time that I actually man up and do it. I’ll be sure to get started on my proper lecture notes soon but for now, enjoy. My student loan finally came through on Monday and needless to say, the money instantly went to my head! After trawling around Amazon for a large amount of time looking for only the coolest things to buy (these ended up to be a kids SpongeBob square pants watch and an Official Sesame Street Elmo belt buckle) it became apparent to me that I should probably moderate my spending. Can anyone guess what ended up happening? Correct. I spent more. As the week drags on, filled with more spending (mostly alcohol, which is acceptable) and nights out we arrive at Wednesday. Wednesday was our day off, so in my head it was something like "Ferris Bueller’s Day off" though in the harshness of reality it was more along the lines of me lying in bed... hung over.

So yes, my day off wasn’t exactly production insofar as it was a day I could have been reading. Instead, I foolishly put it off just to be lazy. I later rallied and got down to some light, light reading before again going out to bop at the SU. After Bop I pretty much pulled my first all-nighter at uni, which im not very proud of, mostly because it was just me in bed unable to sleep - so hardcore. After getting like 2 hours of sleep Thursday morning it dawned on me that I had to be awake and "fresh" for a visit to Southampton to see a friend going there and more importantly, shopping.

UNCOOL.

It was pretty much the best day ever to go to Southampton, because of this heat wave we’re currently having - it was a lovely sunny day but it does have its obvious drawbacks; it’s absolutely boiling hot. While in Southampton we took a much needed trip into possibly the greatest shop in the world - Toys 'R Us. It truly is a magical place - I managed to get myself a super-cool SpongeBob note pad. So clearly our outing to Southampton was very productive!

Keep checking for new posts, most importantly my HJC and short-hand lecture notes and more notes from my man Bertrand x

Youtube Account

So yeah, I've had my YouTube account for a very long time, roughly made it in January - never uploaded anything though which is kinda disappointing! But yeah, I just wanted to clarify that I have a YouTube account, in any case here's my YouTube account http://www.youtube.com/user/Jackwebb77?feature=mhee

Introduction to Law - Ft. McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. (mmm foam)

Read, read, read!

So, this is what we were welcomed to this morning at 10:00 (totes 9:30). As you will all know I was feeling rough from the foam party last night and I definitely remember being crushed by bare amounts of foam and dyeing on the dance floor. It was worth it, I probably wouldn’t go again... but when I think about it, I really would.

So yes, this is what we've been instructed to do, read one tabloid and broadsheet each day - after this morning’s lecture I learned that news papers are definitely fun... if they're read by Chris. I found this lecture particularly interesting as im quite partial to learning about the law - I kinda used to want to be a lawyer when I first went into sixth form but I don’t know if I’d cope; mostly because I would feel the need to constantly use film quotes to help me fight a case, which would utterly work like without a doubt. But yes, let’s get down to the notes.

Law: Basically, the truth is by far your best defence - so you might as well stick to things that are very true, this will decrease your chances of being sued by like a million (more like 99) percent. So this is important when it comes to writing an article - you must make sure that you have a story, a way to strengthen it and then a way to defend it. So the truth is obis vastly important.

as I’ve already mentioned the Up’s Uncodified constitution I’m going to skip ahead to a part I previously omitted - the Up’s constitution is also a very good source of news and stories but it also has its drawbacks insofar as it also places many restraints for example the human rights act gives the right to privacy, but then again in McNeal essential law for journalists it explains that it’s to a degree of interest. For example, the right to privacy depends mostly on how the story would be viewed in the public eye and really as a journalist you’re going to want to write what is interesting. Then to flip it more on its head there's also the freedom of speech which allows people to express their options so long as they're not inciting racial hatred and so on. Cut short - constitution = a great source.

Again this introduction lecture linked heavily into AS politics insofar as the reference to the executive, legislature and the judiciary - all of which are in place to keep the others in check and make sure that there’s never too much power concentrated in one place. These institutions act as checks for each other and this dividing up of major powers is known more commonly as the "Separation of powers". However many people are arguing that there is a 4th institution that actually keeps parliament honest and free of corruption - this is the "Press" and their freedom of speech; this ties into the famous quote:

 "Who shall guard the guardians?"

 The answer? The press will apparently.

There are two types of law, civil and criminal law.

• Civil = things between civilians such as divorce and other disputes like "this dude has totes put his fence in my garden, I’m going to drown him" these disputes are all done in the "boring" civil court which is not the place to be, it’s like going to a bar in Kenilworth thats filled with 50 year olds. Another dispute settled in civil court are counts of LIBEL - more commonly known as the journalist's nemesis - just like Ash and Gary from Pokémon.
• Criminal = the place where it all goes down, counts of murder, theft, burglary and all those other serious offences come right here and are settled in a Crown Court. This is the place to be if you’re a journalist (who’s good at shorthand) who wants to write a bus load of articles. 
• Note to self - LEARN SHORTHAND.

Then it comes to the issue of the truth. As a journalist we must always be sceptical, taking Chris' advice I’ve now been very suspecting of everyone and everything I’ve seen today, what was real? Did I even go to pizza hut today? Im confusing myself now...

In any case, and this is very important, for civil and criminal offences there is a very strict standard of truth. Remember that!

Standard of proof: The standard of proof is different for both civil and criminal.

Civil = Balance of probability.  

Basically, this means that if it looks like they did it then they totes did, for example someone standing above a corpse with a knife and there’s blood everywhere then they're nicked. Very simple and effective way to judge the crime. However, as I learnt in a Key concepts seminar yesterday all is not as it seems! We were told a story by Paul Manning about a hit man ordered to kill a cheating husband's lover - to cut a long story short the hit man knew the hit and so they staged a photograph of the hit covered in tomato sauce and could easily pawn it off as if the hit had been fulfilled. Again linking back to today's lecture - always is sceptical. Boom.

Criminal = Beyond reasonable doubt.

This one’s a bit trickier to pull off. To convict someone of a murder or a more serious offence then you need to acquire one of three sources of evidence.

1. You need a confession!

2. Forensic evidence.

3. Eye witness accounts.

Without these necessities the jury don’t have enough evidence to vote guilty and therefore the justice system has many draw backs.

Well I managed to get this done in the right amount of time! I’ll post today's second lecture about philosophy tomorrow with my free day. This is me done for today, three blog posts in like two hours, boom. I'm now off to drink outrageous amounts of alcohol at Bier Keller which starts at 8... For you Scott Pilgrim fans I’ll leave you with this

 "So yeah... 8 o'clock?"

Bye and stuff x