Libel Case: Kate Winslet

Libel is a written form of expression that is not protected by free speech under the First Amendment, which is a legal concern for editors and publishers. It is the defamation of character, or harm to one’s reputation, as it holds a person up to public mockery, contemptuousness or disgust.

In May of 2009, Kate Winslet filed a libel lawsuit against Britain’s Daily Mail, an online paper. The paper claimed that Winslet lied about her exercise routine in a statement given to Elle magazine and called her “the world’s most irritating actress.” Winslet claimed libel damages from Daily Mail, saying that she was “distressed and embarrassed” by the paper’s claims.

Winslet’s legal basis for filing the lawsuit was that the Daily Mail’s article that claimed that she had publicly lied about her exercise routine jeopardizes her role as a role model for young women, especially as a mother-of-two herself. Winslet went on to further state, “I was particularly upset to be accused of lying about my exercise regime and felt that I had a responsibility to request an apology in order to demonstrate my commitment to the views that I have always expressed about body issues, including diet and exercise. I strongly believe that women should be encouraged to accept themselves as they are, so to suggest that I was lying was an unacceptable accusation of hypocrisy.”

The case has been resolved in which Winslet received $40,000 from Daily Mail for their fallacious claims toward Winslet. The ruling stood with Winslet receiving a settlement because there is evidence proving that the statement the Daily Mail issued is in fact false. Winslet has had strong feelings about the body issues many women have and has made numerous statements, describing her beliefs that women should accept themselves for who they are.

At first I thought that it was ridiculous for Kate Winslet to file a lawsuit against the Daily Mail, but after reading her high beliefs that women should accept who they are and her claim that the false information could taint her image and position as a role model for young girls I realize that she isn’t just making a big fuss for the hell of it but rather to make a point and to stand strong in her beliefs and values.

As with all libel lawsuits, publishers and editors have to be extremely cautious of what claims they make about people and repeatedly check their sources, because libel cases are made based on the feelings of defamation a person who has been spoken of feels. This leaves little room for publishers and editors to win cases, as their only way to do so is to prove that the statement is true, or to defend the statement as opinion rather than intentional misstatement, because opinion is protected from libel.

Because this is a case processed by London’s High Court, it is hard to say what legal principles or laws were involved. However, libel lawsuits in the U.S. date back to the New York Times vs. Sullivan case in 1964. At the time of the Sullivan decision, the Supreme Court made civil courts distinguish whether plaintiffs in libel cases were public or private individuals to control the threat of libel cases. Both public and private individuals had to prove falsehood, damages, and carelessness.