Foul language, hatred, disrepute and ridicule

An Italian footballer has just won substantial damages and costs from the Daily Mail. In the France v Italy World Cup football final in 2006, few sports fans will forget the dramatic scene broadcast on TV all over the world when the French captain, Zinedine Zidane, felled Italian player Marco Materazzi with a head butt '“ rather more colourfully described in French as a 'coup de tête'.

Vile abuse

There was fevered speculation as to what had inspired Zidane to headbutt Materazzi. Lip readers were employed and chatrooms all over the world speculated as to what had provoked Zidane. The Daily Mail came up with the answer. It accused Materazzi of what his counsel described as 'vile racist abuse' by alleging that he had called Zidane 'the son of a terrorist whore'. By way of background, Zidane is well known to have suffered racist taunts as he is an Algerian Berber. If true the abuse was certainly racist and particularly unpleasant.

Materazzi sued for libel for he had subsequently revealed in his autobiography why the incident had occurred. He had been upset at Zidane's 'arrogant' attitude towards him in the match. Materazzi, one of the hard men of Italian football was pulling Zidane's shirt for most of the game. Zidane then told Materazzi he could have his shirt after the game ended, presumably trying to get rid of him. But Materazzi did not say the words attributed to him by the Daily Mail rather, according to Materazzi: 'Preferisco la puttana di tua sorella', which translated means 'I would rather have your whore of a sister'.

Now the ordinary man on the Clapham bendy bus would probably think suggesting sex with and referring to one's sister as a whore was pretty strong stuff even by footballing standards. To Materazzi however, this is the sort of thing that footballers say on football pitches all around the world. If that is the case there is surely something wrong in the game. More importantly what reputation does he have to protect? Both taunts amount to vile abuse and it is perhaps fortunate for Materazzi that he did not say what he is alleged to have said. But the point is should Materazzi be getting large amounts of money and legal costs for behaving badly in any event?

The second case involves a Labour MP called Martyn Jones and the Mail on Sunday. The Mail on Sunday reported him as behaving badly, and having a foul-mouthed outburst at a police guard at the House of Commons when asked to produce his security pass. He denied the allegations, sued for libel and the matter went before a jury. The trial lasted four days and the Labour MP was awarded £5,000 and costs. The total bill for Associated Newspapers for fighting the action is likely to be around £300,000.

Attempt to ruin his intregrity

The MP, who claimed he was vindicated, accused the Mail on Sunday of a political attack against him because he was a Labour MP and of a crude attempt to ruin his integrity. However, the paper produced evidence from a security guard who told the court that when Jones was asked to show his pass, he was told to 'fuck off' and that Jones had protested that he was an MP '“ the 'Don't you know who I am?' defence. On persisting with this request, the guard was again told to 'fuck off'. The MP admitted swearing but did not admit swearing at the guard. The jury was told by Mr Jones himself that, in response to a polite request by a security guard at the House of Commons to show his security pass, Mr Jones said: 'I don't give a shit what you are, you should know who MPs are'.

Does this sort of case merit going to a full trial? Does this case merit the institution of libel proceedings at all? If Jones used foul language, even if he did not actually say 'fuck off', was it appropriate for huge legal costs to be incurred taking it to trial even though Jones also alleged other errors in the article about him, and deliberate exaggeration?

Surely both cases at best were examples of where a Declaration of Falsity should have been allowed without any damages being awarded? Salman Rushdie did it recently in respect of false allegations in a book.

Footballers should behave themselves on the pitch and MPs should behave themselves in and outside parliament. Both are role models in this regard and there is a public interest in their activities. Neither claimant can truly feel vindicated and their victories come at the expense of freedom of expression. The press should not be constrained from publishing stories which may not be totally accurate. The punishment does not fit the crime and if we allow newspapers to be strangled by unmeritorious claims we shall live to rue the day.