With regards to Libel.

To begin our foray into the depths of Libel, we must first look at what is required of the claimant in order for them to mount such a malicious attack upon another: (use of the colon perfected in precision english) the claimant must prove that whatever material they have taken offence to is 'defamatory' towards them; as in lowering their reputation: they must then prove, in a Civil court, that the material is understood to be referring to the claimant 'beyond reasonable doubt'; the third and final proof required is that of a third person's involvement, e.g: a readership.

Now we have established that there isn't much to prove in order to take someone to court over Libel, I will take us back to the beginning of the lecture in which I was given this information (although I had read the book, but for storytelling purposes this is easier and more interesting):

-Zoning in-
We begin with Chris Horrie holding, as is quite regular in these situations, The Sun newspaper; Chris is laughing aloud as we disentangle the reason why the cabinet women were being so immorally attacked by Mary Portas (insufferable orange-haired witch from humbly-named television programmes such as 'Mary Queen of Shops' and nothing else of any more prestige than that), Emily Ashton (y'know that famous woman from... The Sun.) and The Sun's Fashion Editor: Toni Jones. The reason is surprisingly simple, even though the article was especially defaming, it is all very legal.

But why? (I hear nobody cry, due to the form of media I am using) The reason is, hauling us back from the tangent of The Sun's witless abuse of politicians, 'mere abuse': the first instance of legal jargon to be spoken of in the lecture, and for good reason: mere abuse is a great defence against Libel claims, as, if the defendant can prove that the insults are matters of opinion and they are the truthful opinion of the defendant (this is under the cover of the 'Fair Comment' defence), then the defendant has the right to print their own opinion.

The lecture then moved onto a more formal note, defining Libel as what it is; a dispute between two parties over reputation, which then required a proper definition of what a person can claim of their reputation, which is: a person has the reputation to which they are entitled [through the opinions of others]: not what said person thinks their reputation is.

This definition, whilst seeming to aid the defendant, is balanced by the fact that defamation only has to TEND (this is how it was written in my notes) to damage reputation, meaning that the claimant must only prove, on the balance of probability, that the person's reputation COULD (once again, how my notes were written) be damaged.

Also, accusing someone of a crime is a definite act of libel, unless they are already proven guilty in a British Court of Law, and even then a summary of the defence must be given in the interests of fairness.

To be Libel; the defamation must be in a permanent form, hence why it is such a threat to journalists. These definitions of the fine points of Libel can be summarised by the convenient addition:

Identification + Publication + Defamation = Libel (handy).

With this handy summary of Libel, I will bid you Adieu.