Would The Real Lame Norstrom Please Stand Up

Part of the case that Layne Norton will have to make is that the alleged defamatory comments are about him.  Layne Norton is specifically named in the first video complained of.  However, in the subsequent 15th June 2013 video, “Spotting A Fake Natural Bodybuilder Part 3 Growing Into A Show Ala Lame Nordstrom”, the purportedly fictional character, “Lame Norstom”, is referred to by Jason Blaha and questions are raised about Lame Norstrom’s use of banned substances.  Layne Norton suggests that the comments directed at Lame Norstom are in fact defamatory comments directed at him.

The 15th June Lame Norstrom video comes with the caveat that, “Under UK law use of nicknames that neither a public figure nor his personal friends use to address him is not considered slander or liable and is a protect right of the media for the purpose of satire and criticism”.  This appears to be Jason Blaha’s position and similar statements are made subsequently.  However, the correct legal principle involved is whether or not a reasonable person would think that the defamatory statement applied to the claimant or not.  This was established in the 1940 Court of Appeal case, Newstead v London Express Newspaper 1 KB 337 and that is the question the court will have to decide.  Would a reasonable person believe that Lame Norstom was meant to be Layne Norton?  If on the facts the court decides that question in the affirmative Jason Blaha will be liable for any comments found to defamatory if they were directed at Lame Norstrom.