Your appeal for a milder libel law interpretation ("'Responsible journalism' an interesting defence," 22 November) is biased by your participation in journalism.

When a newspaper or any other medium of public discourse states something to the detriment of a target's reputation, the victim has a right to seek redress and the medium has an obligation to prove that its statement is accurate. In effect, the medium tries the victim in public and finds him/her guilty; that finding must be tested for proof in a court of law.

You protest that the medium is held to be guilty until proven innocent. The opposite is true: the medium finds the victim guilty without proof. He/she is justified in obliging the publication to prove its allegation in court.

The US libel law assumption that "anything published is basically truthful" (your words) is bad. These days, media often publish in haste to beat the competition; if their facts are wrong, they must pay the penalty. US law excuses a newspaper if there is no proven "malice aforethought." That virtually guarantees an unsuccessful libel suit because the victim cannot prove malice on the part of the publisher.

Here in Canada a person must be proven guilty before they can be declared guilty, but of course media outlets prefer to be able to say anything they wish with impunity. Not only your paper, but also the Globe and Mail and other publications frequently print an appeal for a US type of libel law, because none wish to be sued. "Freedom of the press!" they cry.

Even when a newspaper is forced to pay a claimant for wrongful and defamatory reportage, great damage is done to the victim's reputation and the media are well aware of that. Apologies are usually published on an inner page where they will not be highly visible, whereas the original report is often a front-page sensation. Some trials go on for years, while the victim's friends desert him/her and his/her business fails.

That is not fair and you should be ashamed to seek the non-malice defence of the US legal system. Media complain bitterly when an innocent person is jailed. Why do you not sympathize with the maligned victim of libel? The effect is the same.

Charles Hooker

Orangeville