Statements Which May Cause Harm To Someone Reputation: Defamation (Essay Sample)

STUDENTS NAME:
STUDENTS ID:
PRESENTED BY:
SUBMISSION DATE:
Introduction
Defamation law is defined as statements which may cause harm to someone reputation. Recently it is more ethical than legal due to the personal harm it may result to (Hough,Bradford,Jackson and Quinton, 2016). It has been clear in media sector where the journalists are doing a sensitive research about something or someone. The information they give has two results either to the person being researched or to the journalists themselves. Some information is required to remain confidential due to ethical consideration since once it is exposed to the public; it causes harm to the victim. Defamation in most cases has a negative result to the individuals engaged which include the change of career and living a miserable life (Lyles, Fruchterman, Youdelman and Schillinger, 2017).
The connection between defamation, ethical and legal issues were clear from a case of journalist how was supposed to disclose information in the court proceeding (Rolph, 2016).  The journalist by the name Mr. John had carried out an investigation concerning Mr. Alex concerning the source of his wealth. Mr. John had made a statement that Mr. Alex wealth was a result of drug trafficking when he was a civil servant. He added that the even after exiting from the government Mr. Alex has continued to be a beneficiary of the same drug trafficking (Hough,Bradford,Jackson and Quinton, 2016).
In the court proceeding, Mr. John was to provide a direct evidence of the statements he had made earlier and the source of the data which can be used to prove the truth that Mr. Alex has been involved in drug selling. Mr. John situation remains a dilemma since disclosing the information expose him to a risk (Rolph, 2016).  The cost it may cost him as an individual since the source of information was confidential; also the cost to Mr. Alex to the general public point of view remains a difficult issue. At this point, the connection between ethical and legal issues is noted since Mr. John feels it would be better if he fails to disclose the information of which it was legal issues that had facilitated (Alcazar and Tsuda, 2016).
For a fair judgment to plaintiff Mr. Alex, the journalist was to offer the source and direct situations which provide clear evidence about the case (Taylor, 2016). In this case, Mr. Alex could have served some ethical issues being a public figure. His well-known name being a civil servant could have deemed which lead to loss of confidence by the public from the sector he works on (Alcazar and Tsuda, 2016). For example being the chairperson of the water board and tribe leader the members would have felt it being unrealistic. Also, his overall performance would have been associated with illegal activities which are drug trafficking. Personally, he could have felt being less motivated to live in a big house and driving an expensive vehicle. At this point, Mr. Alex may search for a better solution to dealing with the issue since it has more ethical harm than legal harm. If the journalist could have disclosed the information Mr. Alex fine by the court of the order would have affected him less compared with the ethical loss, he could have experienced (Alcazar and Tsuda, 2016).
On the other hand, Mr. John who was a defendant could have suffered too by providing the information which was needed by the court (Jacob, Decker and Lugg, 2016).  Some of the risk attached to it was losing the job since the Media Company had indicated clearly that the journalist should filter what they offer to the public. Therefore the Media Company could have used that to resolve it ethical part of the issue. Also, John life could be in danger since the rich man Mr. Alex could have hunted him to take revenge from the ethical suffering he could have gone (Rolph, 2016). 
In connection to this case, Mr. John requested the court of law to use an article in the law which state "for the welfare of the individual after the case judgments the court should make consideration to individuals to secure life." The court making consideration on Mr. John case is clear indication that defamation is more of ethical more than legal (Barendt, 2017). The alternative route that the court advised John was to offer the information in secret platform to enable the court to perform its duty without harming the life of John. Mr. John accepting to disclose the information in secret chamber indicates that he was considering more of his ethical issues of his life more than the legal follow up (Middleton, Lee and Stewart, 2017).
According to with Judge Ann, Mr. John knew a half of the law concern...