COMMENT: Media law - How insulting is too insulting?

The Story in the FT Weekend.

Today in the Financial Times' "Comment & Analysis" section I found this story following the recent activities of Scarlett Johansson. The overarching theme is certainly suggesting that Johansson's career has become one of corporate greed:

"The cool indie beauty has turned corporate - something has been lost in translation all right."

This is in relation to her recently becoming a brand ambassador for Israeli fizzy drink dispenser dispenser, SodaStream, which uses land illegitimately held by Israel in Mishor Adumim to make CO2 cylinders and carbonation bottles. Then:

"Following a pointed exchange of statements between Oxfam (for whom she was previously an ambassador) and Ms Johansson, the actress said she would remain SodaStream's ambassador but was dropping her Oxfam role."

The story attacks her character, outlining her decision to choose a fat cheque over human rights.

The legality of it all:

Hypothetically speaking, if Johansson's legal team was to attempt to sue, the prosecution could argue:

The article tends to lower Johansson in the eyes of right thinking people: What with her choosing the payroll of a company that aggravates one of the most influential conflicts of the modern world by the illegitimate placement of it's industrial estate.

Causes Johansson to be shunned or avoided by society/ exposes her to hatred: enlightening more people who may join the online crusade against her immorality.

Disparages Johansson in her business, trade and profession: Employers in future may avoid employing her due to her negative associations.

Defenses:

Under new law, a statement must be proven to have caused "serious harm" as opposed to the previous "tends to cause harm" prior to the amendment. I'm sure Johansson will manage following the exposing of her actions in the FT.

Honest opinion (formerly "fair comment"): With the story being in the comment section, the writers could argue, quite rightly, that it is their honest opinion that Johansson has gone from "indie beauty" to "corporate".

Public Interest (previously Reynolds defense): It could be said that to not publish this information might lead fans of Johansson to believe that she is a humanitarian of great dignity, and did not accept cheques from morally dubious employers.

And finally, the best defense of all, it's the truth: Johansson undeniably preferred a big ol' cheque from SodaStream to help sell their products, which are partly made on land acquired illegitimately by Israel in 1967, to being an ambassador for the charity Oxfam.

Moral of the story: Don't be a douche Scarlett!