DOCSLIB.ORG

Discussion Paper on Defamation (DP No 161)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discussion Paper on Defamation (DP No 161) (DISCUSSION PAPER No 161) Discussion Paper on Defamation discussion paper Discussion Paper on Defamation March 2016 DISCUSSION PAPER No 161 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission NOTES 1. Please note that information about this Discussion Paper, including copies of responses, may be made available in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Any confidential response will be dealt with in accordance with the 2002 Act. We may also (i) publish responses on our website (either in full or in some other way such as re-formatted or summarised); and (ii) attribute comments and publish a list of respondents’ names. 2. Where possible, we would prefer electronic submission of comments. A downloadable electronic response form for this paper as well as a general comments form are available on our website. Alternatively, our general email address is [email protected]. 3. Please note that all hyperlinks in this document were checked for accuracy at the time of final draft. 4. If you have any difficulty in reading this document, please contact us and we will do our best to assist. You may wish to note that the pdf version of this document available on our website has been tagged for accessibility. 5. © Crown copyright 2016 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is also available on our website at http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. ISBN: 978-0-9935529-2-2 Produced for the Scottish Law Commission by APS Group Scotland, 21 Tennant Street, Edinburgh EH6 5NA. ii The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 (as amended) for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven. The Chief Executive of the Commission is Malcolm McMillan. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. The Commission would be grateful if comments on this Discussion Paper were submitted by 17 June 2016. Please ensure that, prior to submitting your comments, you read notes 1-2 on the facing page. Respondents who wish to address only some of the questions and proposals in the Discussion Paper may do so. All non-electronic correspondence should be addressed to: Dr Heike Gading Scottish Law Commission 140 Causewayside Edinburgh EH9 1PR Tel: 0131 668 2131 iii Contents Paragraph Page Chapter 1 Introduction Background to the project 1.1 1 The piecemeal nature of Scots defamation law 1.11 3 The Defamation Act 2013 and its implications for reform of Scots law 1.14 3 Our approach 1.17 4 Legislative competence 1.22 6 Impact assessment 1.25 6 Chapter 2 Requisites and key principles of defamation law Background 2.1 8 Origins of the Scots law of defamation 2.2 8 Interests protected by the law of defamation 2.4 9 What amounts to defamation? 2.5 9 Other requisites 2.10 10 The determination of meaning attributable to the statement – as a matter of law and of fact 2.12 11 Innuendo 2.15 12 Single meaning rule 2.16 12 Defences 2.17 13 Defamation v libel and slander – the position in Scots and English law 2.18 13 Chapter 3 Publication and threshold test How far must a statement be communicated in order to be actionable? 3.1 14 Threshold test 3.5 15 Introduction 3.5 15 A new threshold test in Scots law? 3.8 16 Operation of the threshold test in section 1(1) 3.14 18 Discussion 3.24 21 Application of a threshold test to parties other than private individuals 3.25 21 The position under the 2013 Act 3.29 23 Discussion 3.34 25 Chapter 4 The defence of truth The defence as it currently applies in Scots law 4.2 27 The statutory defence under section 2 of the 2013 Act 4.8 29 Some issues arising from section 2 of the 2013 Act 4.10 29 Burden of proof 4.10 29 Codification 4.14 31 Discussion 4.15 31 iv Contents (cont’d) Paragraph Page Chapter 5 The defence of fair comment Introduction 5.1 32 Fair comment in Scots law 5.3 32 How effective is the common law defence of fair comment in practice? 5.6 33 The changes made by section 3 of the 2013 Act to the defence in England and Wales 5.7 33 Discussion 5.10 34 Abolition of the public interest criterion 5.11 35 Honest belief? 5.12 35 Some issues and questions arising from section 3 of the 2013 Act 5.13 36 A statutory defence of fair comment in Scots law? 5.20 37 Chapter 6 Publication on a matter of public interest The current position in Scots law 6.2 39 Advantages and disadvantages of the Reynolds approach 6.5 40 The statutory defence under section 4 of the 2013 Act 6.7 41 Other jurisdictions 6.9 42 Discussion 6.10 42 Reasonableness of belief that publication is in the public interest 6.10 42 Fact v opinion 6.12 43 Section 4 and reportage 6.13 43 Chapter 7 Responsibility and defences for publication by internet intermediaries Introduction 7.1 46 Responsibility and defences for publication by internet intermediaries under Scots law 7.3 47 Responsibility for online material under common law in Scotland 7.3 47 The defence of innocent dissemination in Scots law 7.4 47 The defence under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 7.6 48 Protection under the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 7.13 50 Summary for responsibility and defences under Scots law 7.20 52 Responsibility and defences for internet intermediaries in England and Wales 7.21 52 Responsibility of internet intermediaries for publication – the common law 7.22 52 v Contents (cont’d) Paragraph Page The defence for website operators under section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 7.26 53 Jurisdiction for cases against a secondary publisher 7.27 53 The need for reform 7.29 54 Options for reform 7.34 55 Defence for website operators along the lines of section 5 of the 2013 Act 7.34 55 Responsibility and defences for hyperlinks, search engines and content aggregations 7.40 57 Chapter 8 Absolute and qualified privilege Introduction 8.1 61 Absolute privilege 8.3 61 Judicial proceedings 8.4 61 Proceedings in Parliament and publication of parliamentary papers 8.5 62 Reports of court proceedings 8.10 63 Qualified privilege 8.13 63 Qualified privilege: common law and statutory 8.13 63 Statutory privilege in the Defamation Act 1996 8.16 64 Extract from or abstract of a parliamentary report etc. 8.20 66 Qualified privilege in academic discourse 8.24 67 Chapter 9 Remedies Introduction 9.1 69 The Scots law position 9.2 69 Discussion 9.6 70 Offer to make amends 9.9 71 Summary disposal 9.13 73 Statement in open court 9.19 75 Chapter 10 Limitation of defamation claims and application of long-stop prescription Limitation, prescription and defamation actions: brief background as to the current position in Scotland 10.2 77 Limitation and its particular significance for archiving 10.4 78 The position under the 2013 Act: the single publication rule 10.6 79 Preliminary thoughts on the possible application of the 2013 Act model in Scotland 10.9 80 The single publication rule as a possible mixed blessing 10.9 80 vi Contents (cont’d) Paragraph Page The single publication rule and ECHR considerations 10.10 80 Relevant differences in Scots and English law 10.12 81 The position in other jurisdictions 10.15 83 Other possible options for reform 10.16 83 Defence of non-culpable republication 10.16 83 Reliance on a threshold test 10.18 84 Discussion 10.19 84 Chapter 11 Jurisdiction and jury trials Jurisdiction 11.1 86 Jury trials 11.5 88 Chapter 12 Defamation of the deceased Background 12.1 91 Scotland: brief summary of activity in the area so far 12.2 91 The progression of case law 12.2 91 Petition to the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament 12.3 91 “Death of a Good Name” – The Scottish Government consultation 12.4 92 The Defamation Bill (now the Defamation Act 2013) – Legislative Consent Motion 12.7 93 Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press 12.9 93 The position in other jurisdiction 12.12 94 Germany 12.12 94 United States - Georgia 12.14 94 Australia 12.15 95 Discussion of the general principle 12.16 95 The main arguments against allowing defamation actions on behalf of deceased people 12.17 95 The main arguments in favour of allowing defamation actions on behalf of deceased people 12.23 97 Decision to consider the issue as part of the current project 12.26 98 Some more specific points 12.27 98 Who should be able to bring an action? 12.28 99 Lapse of time after death 12.31 99 Circumstances giving rise to death 12.33 100 vii Contents (cont’d) Paragraph Page Chapter 13 Verbal injury and defamation Introduction 13.1 101 Some general points on verbal injury 13.4 101 Absence of presumptions in favour of the pursuer 13.5 101 The requirement to prove malice 13.6 102 Section 3 of the Defamation Act 1952 13.7 102 Defences in actions relating to verbal injury 13.9 102 Outline of the main categories of verbal injury 13.10 102 Slander of property 13.11 103 Slander of title 13.14 104 Falsehood about the pursuer causing business loss 13.17 104 Verbal injury to feelings caused by exposure to public hatred, contempt or ridicule 13.18 105 Slander on a third party 13.24 107 Discussion 13.26 108 A possible way forward 13.35 111 Chapter 14 List of questions 114 Appendix Defamation Act 2013 120 viii Chapter 1 Introduction 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Court of Appeal Found No Love for Topshop Tank
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by CLoK Court of Appeal found no love for Topshop tank: theimage right that dare not speak its name Susan Fletcher Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Central Lancashire Justine Mitchell Associate Lecturer in Law, University of Central Lancashire Subject:Passing Off. Other related subjects: Torts. Image rights.Personalityrights.Publicityrights.Passing off. Tradeconnections.Intellectual property. Keywords:passing off, image rights, personality rights, publicity rights, trade marks, goodwill, misrepresentation, merchandising, endorsements, English law, comparative law, unfair competition, freeriding, unjust enrichment, dilution, monopoly, social media, photograph, Rihanna, Topshop, Fenty, Arcadia Abstract:This article contains an analysis of the first instance and appeal decisions of the “Rihanna case”.In particular, the authors consider the substantive law of passing off in the context of the unauthorised use of a celebrity's image on a Topshop tank vest top. This is followed by a discussionof the consequences of the caseforcelebrities, consumers and stakeholders in theentertainmentand fashion industries. Every time you see me it's a different colour, a different shape, a different style. ....because it really...I/we just go off of instinct. Whatever we feel that very moment, we just go for it. Creatively, fashion is another world for me to get my creativity out.12 1Rihanna quote from the Talk That Talk music video available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVTKxwO2UnU
    [Show full text]
  • Fickle Justice: Judicial Idiosyncrasy in UK Privacy Cases
    Fickle Justice: Judicial Idiosyncrasy in UK Privacy Cases PAUL WRAGGt I. INTRODUCTION In 1990, the Federal Court of Australia rejected counsel's submission that English authorities on the "public interest" defense in breach of confidence claims ought to be adopted. The court dismissively described those authorities as "not so much a rule of law as an invitation to judicial idiosyncrasy."' The same comment seems equally applicable today. As is well-established in British common law, when deciding claims for misuse of private information (which replaces breach of confidence),2 the court must decide whether the claimant's reasonable expectation of privacy is outweighed by the contribution to a debate of public interest that the publication makes.3 As the case law shows, this is usually a delicate balance that may involve fine distinctions. Yet despite judicial recognition that the "applicable principles [should] be stated with reasonable clarity ' 4 so as to avoid accusations of judicial idiosyncrasy, the approach taken to determining the question of "public interest" remains an invitation to such, especially where celebrities' private lives are involved. Recent developments suggest broad diversity in the methodology of evaluating the worth of privacy-invading expression in which both skeptical and generous approaches are evident. These idiosyncratic factors are the subject of discussion in this Article.5 By examining the recent case law, it will be argued that since the public interest test pervades a range of measures relating to the misuse of private information tort, the issue of judicial idiosyncrasy must be addressed by an appellate court. The adoption of the skeptical approach as tLecturer in Law, School of Law, University of Leeds, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland
    Research and Information Service Briefing Paper Paper 37/14 21 March 2014 NIAR 95-14 Michael Potter Defamation in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland Nothing in this paper constitutes legal advice or should be used as a replacement for such 1 Introduction The Committee for Finance and Personnel commissioned background research into the approaches adopted by the Scottish Parliament and the Oireachtas with respect to defamation law1. This paper supplements Briefing Paper 90/13 ‘The Defamation Act 2013’2, presented to the Committee for Finance and Personnel on 26 June 20133. The paper considers defamation law in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland in the light of legislative change in England and Wales brought about by the Defamation Act 2013. 1 Meeting of the Committee for Finance and Personnel 3 July 2013: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Finance/minutes/20130703.pdf. 2 Research and Information Service Briefing Paper 90/13 The Defamation Act 2013 21 June 2013: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/RaISe/Publications/2013/finance_personnel/9013.pdf. 3 Meeting of the Committee for Finance and Personnel 26 June 2013: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Documents/Finance/minutes/20130626.pdf. Providing research and information services to the Northern Ireland Assembly 1 NIAR 95-14 Briefing Paper 2 Defamation Law in England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland The basis of defamation law in all four jurisdictions is in common law. Legislation has codified certain aspects of defamation in each case, the more recent
    [Show full text]
  • Poinding and Warrant Sale
    SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION (Scot Law Com No 177) Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers April 2000 SE/2000/40 Edinburgh: The Stationery Office £12.90 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 19651 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Gill, Chairman P S Hodge, QC Professor G Maher Professor K G C Reid Professor J M Thomson The Secretary of the Commission is Mr N Raven. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR 1 Now amended by the Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No 2) Order 1999 (S.I.1999/1802) ii SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION Report on a reference under section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Poinding and Warrant Sale To: Jim Wallace, Esq., QC, MSP, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice We have the honour to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Report on Poinding and Warrant Sale. (Signed) BRIAN GILL, Chairman PATRICK S HODGE GERARD MAHER KENNETH G C REID JOSEPH M THOMSON NORMAN RAVEN, Secretary 20 March 2000 iii Contents Paragraph Page Executive Summary x-xi Table of Abbreviations xii-xiii PART I - INTRODUCTION Background to report 1.1 1 Our 1985 Report and the 1987 Act 1.3 1 Consultation and other material 1.5 2 The SOCRU evaluation of the 1987 Act 1.9 3 Structure of the report 1.10 3 Acknowledgements 1.11 3 PART 2 - POLICY ISSUES Introduction 2.1 4 The nature
    [Show full text]
  • MOSLEY V UNITED KINGDOM
    [2012] E.M.L.R. 1 1 MOSLEY v UNITED KINGDOM European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) Application No.48009/08 Lech Garlicki (President), Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, David Thór Björgvinsson, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Nebojša Vučinić, Judges: April 12, 2011 [2012] E.M.L.R. 1 Freedom of expression; Misuse of private information; Newspapers; Notification; Positive obligations; Publication; Right to respect for private and family life H1 Human rights—misuse of private information—freedom of expression—art.8 and art.10—interim injunction—failure of newspaper to give advance warning of intended publication of private information—whether government obliged by art.8 to require press to notify person affected of intention to publish private information—no violation of art.8. H2 The applicant was the subject of an article published on March 30, 2008 on the front page and several inside pages of the erstwhile tabloid newspaper, the News of the World. The article was headlined “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers” and began with the sentence “Formula 1 motor racing chief Max Mosley is today exposed as a secret sadomasochistic sex pervert”. The article was illustrated with still photographs taken from video footage secretly recorded by one of the participants. Edited extracts from the video, together with still images, were published on the newspaper’s website and became available elsewhere on the internet. H3 On March 31, 2008, in response to a complaint from the applicant’s solicitors, the News of the World took down the edited video footage from its websites and gave an undertaking not to put it up again without 24 hours’ notice.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Statutes
    Table of Statutes Commonwealth Constitution: 297 s 9: 296 Ch III: 5, 14, 15, 234, 363, 370, 372, 391, s 10: 296 397, 398, 404-406, 410 s 11: 296 s 1: 391, 422, 436 s 12: 17 s 7: 417, 422, 423, 425, 428, 429, 432, s 13: 296 436, 441 s 14: 296 s 8: 436 s 15: 17, 18, 296 s 15: 180, 193 s 15(1): 6 s 16: 436 Australia (Request and Consent) Act s 24: 416, 417, 422-425, 428, 429, 432, 1985: 296 436, 441 Australian Capital Territory (Self-Gov- s 29: 422 ernment) 1988 s 30: 422, 436 s 22: 66 s 49: 317 Broadcasting Act 1942 s 51: 65 Pt IIID: 426 s 51(xxix): 233 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxi): 380 lation of Registration) Act 1986: 367, s 51(xxxv): 426 370 s 51(xxxvii): 3 Builders Labourers Federation (Cancel- s 51(xxxviii): 3, 281, 285, 287, 288 lation of Registration – Conse- s 53: 191 quential Provisions) Act 1986: 367 s 57: 185, 192 s 7: 368 s 61: 391 Builders Labourers Federation Legis- s 71: 14, 384, 391, 396, 397, 399 lation Amendment Act 1990: 389 s 73: 384 Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902: 422 s 74: 273 Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904: s 77(iii): 14, 384, 396, 399, 405 367 s 80: 380 Constitution Alteration (State Debts) Act s 90: 66, 67 1929: 142 s 92: 380 Customs Act 1901: 66 s 105A: 142, 144, 148 Financial Agreements (Commonwealth s 105A(3): 144 Liability) Act 1932: 143 s 105A(5): 144 Financial Agreements Enforcement Act s 106: 78, 79, 234, 352, 371, 432, 440 1932: 143, 146, 152, 157 s 107: 356, 357 Pt II: 144 s 116: 380 Financial Agreements (State Legislation) s 117: 380 Act 1932: 148 s 128: 18, 115-117, 429, 434
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation Act 2013 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 05 September 2021
    Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) View outstanding changes Defamation Act 2013 2013 CHAPTER 26 An Act to amend the law of defamation. [25th April 2013] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— Requirement of serious harm 1 Serious harm (1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. (2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss. Commencement Information I1 S. 1 in force at 1.1.2014 by S.I. 2013/3027, art. 2 Defences 2 Truth (1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true. (2) Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations. 2 Defamation Act 2013 (c. 26) Document Generated: 2021-09-05 Changes to legislation: Defamation Act 2013 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 September 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Law Commission Annual Report 2019
    promoting law reform (SCOT LAW COM No 255) annual report | 2019 1 2 promoting law reform The Commission was established under the Law Commissions Act 1965 Our function To recommend reforms to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland Our role To play a leading role in developing the law for the people of Scotland so that it is just, principled, responsive and easy to understand annual report | 2019 1 Commissioners and Chief Executive in 2019 (back row) Malcolm McMillan (Chief Executive), David Johnston QC, and Lady Paton (Chair) (front row) Professor Frankie McCarthy, Caroline Drummond and Kate Dowdalls QC 2 promoting law reform Annual Report 2019 To: Humza Yousaf MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Justice We are pleased to submit to the Scottish Ministers our Annual Report for the year to 31 December 2019. ANN PATON, Chair KATE DOWDALLS FRANKIE McCARTHY Malcolm McMillan, Chief Executive 10 February 2020 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 3(3) of the Law Commissions Act 1965. February 2020 SCOT LAW COM No 255 SG/2020/23 3 © Crown copyright 2020 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email: [email protected] Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Memorandum (97KB Pdf Posted 16 June 2009)
    This document relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill (SP Bill 27) as introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 June 2009 INTERPRETATION AND LEGISLATIVE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL —————————— POLICY MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. This document relates to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Bill introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 15 June 2009. It has been prepared by the Scottish Government to satisfy Rule 9.3.3(c) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders. The contents are entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Government and have not been endorsed by the Parliament. Explanatory Notes and other accompanying documents are published separately as SP Bill 27–EN. BACKGROUND 2. The Bill deals principally with technical procedural matters concerning the making and interpretation of Acts of the Scottish Parliament (“ASPs”) and Scottish instruments made under them. The Bill’s provisions broadly restate, with some modifications, provisions currently found in the Transitional Orders. The Transitional Orders were enacted by Westminster in anticipation of the Scottish Parliament coming into being. The Transitional Orders are– • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Publication and Interpretation etc. of Acts of the Scottish Parliament) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1379) (“the Interpretation Order”); • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Statutory Instruments) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1096) (“the SI Order”); and • The Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Orders subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure) Order 1999 (SI 1999/1593) (“the SPP Order”). 3. As their name suggests, the Transitional Orders were conceived to be interim measures to allow the new Parliament to operate until such time as it made its own provision.
    [Show full text]
  • Tugendhat and Christie: the Law of Privacy and the Media Online
    DFwnN (Free pdf) Tugendhat and Christie: The Law of Privacy and The Media Online [DFwnN.ebook] Tugendhat and Christie: The Law of Privacy and The Media Pdf Free From Oxford University Press *Download PDF | ePub | DOC | audiobook | ebooks Download Now Free Download Here Download eBook #6465806 in Books 2016-03-14Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 7.00 x 2.20 x 9.80l, .0 #File Name: 01996857461010 pages | File size: 26.Mb From Oxford University Press : Tugendhat and Christie: The Law of Privacy and The Media before purchasing it in order to gage whether or not it would be worth my time, and all praised Tugendhat and Christie: The Law of Privacy and The Media: 0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. lsquo;THE FOGGY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONrsquo;By Phillip Taylor MBElsquo;THE FOGGY BOUNDARIES BETWEEN PRIVACY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSIONrsquo;ARE EXAMINED IN THIS DEFINITIVE WORK OF REFERENCE-- NOW IN A NEW THIRD EDITIONAn appreciation by Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor of Richmond Green ChambersThis book, says co-editor Sir Mark Warby is lsquo;not an academic treatise, but a practitionerrsquo;s textbookrsquo; adding that lsquo;the practitionerrsquo;s insight is an enormously important part of this workrsquo;, newly published by the Oxford University Press.Now in its third edition, this long established and authoritative work of reference is an absolute boon to practitioners in this difficult field where, more often than not, controversies rage. Within its almost 900 pages, the book contains the insightful -- and not altogether non- controversial -- commentary of some twenty-nine erudite contributors, including the two editors and interestingly, nine foreign law contributors from as many jurisdictions ndash; a useful feature here, for comparative lawyers.The wealth of new material and commentary in this edition reflects the significant developments in this area of law that have emerged since the previous edition of 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Over Communication Torts
    Masthead Logo Global Business & Development Law Journal Volume 9 | Issue 2 Article 7 1-1-1996 Jurisdiction over Communication Torts: Can You be Pulled into Another Country's Court System for Making a Defamatory Statement over the Internet?--A Comparison of English and U.S. Law Tara Blake Garfinkel University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/globe Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Tara B. Garfinkel, Jurisdiction over Communication Torts: Can You be Pulled into Another Country's Court System for Making a Defamatory Statement over the Internet?--A Comparison of English and U.S. Law, 9 Transnat'l Law. 489 (1996). Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/globe/vol9/iss2/7 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Law Reviews at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Global Business & Development Law Journal by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments Jurisdiction Over Communication Torts: Can You be Pulled into Another Country's Court System for Making a Defamatory Statement Over the Internet? A Comparison of English and U.S. Law TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 490 II. THE INTERNET ............................................ 494 A. Defined ............................................. 494 B. Modes of Communicationon the Internet ................... 495 1. The World Wide Web (WWW or The Web) ............... 495 2. Electronic Mail (E-Mail) ............................ 496 3. Discussion Groups ................................. 496 I. CURRENT DEFAMATION LAW IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES .. 497 A. England ............................................. 498 1. Introduction ...................................... 498 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England
    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2002 Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England Susanna Frederick Fischer The Catholic University, Columbus School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Susanna Frederick Fischer, Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England, 34 GEO. WASH. INT’L L. REV. 101 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RETHINKING SULLIVAN: NEW APPROACHES IN AUSTRALIA, NEW ZEALAND, AND ENGLAND SUSANNA FREDERICK FISCHER* "This is a difficult problem. No answer is perfect." - Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers1 SUMMARY This Article employs a comparative analysis of some important recent Commonwealth libel cases to analyze what has gone wrong with U.S. defa- mation law since New York Times v. Sullivan and to suggest a new direc- tion for its reform. In Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Lange v. Atkinson, and Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, the highest courts of the Australian, New Zealand, and English legal systems were con- fronted with the same challengefaced by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan. They had to decide the proper constitutionalbal- ance between protection of reputation and protection of free expression in defamation actions brought by public officials over statements of fact.
    [Show full text]