DOCSLIB.ORG

Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill Written Evidence

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEFAMATION BILL Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill Written evidence Volume III (HL Paper 203 & HC 930-III) Contents Memorandum by the British Medical Association (EV 01) .......................................... 2 Memorandum by Mr T Ewing (EV 02) ........................................................................ 4 Memorandum by Dr Peter Wilmshurst (EV 07) ......................................................... 20 Memorandum by The Society of Authors (EV 12) .................................................... 36 Memorandum by the Media Law Resource Center (EV 14) ..................................... 42 Memorandum by the Canadian Lawyers Association (EV 15) .................................. 53 Memorandum by Professor Stephen Curry (EV 16) ................................................. 65 Memorandum by Jonathan Seagrave (EV 17) .......................................................... 69 Memorandum by JUSTICE (EV 20) .......................................................................... 72 Memorandum by The Law Society (EV 21) .............................................................. 86 Memorandum by Skeptics in the Pub (EV 22) .......................................................... 99 Memorandum by Professor Max Headley (EV 23) ................................................. 102 Memorandum by Professor David Colquhoun (EV 25) ........................................... 103 Memorandum by James Price QC (EV 26)............................................................. 106 Memorandum by the Nightingale Collaboration (EV 28) ......................................... 112 Memorandum by The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom (EV 30) .... 114 Memorandum by Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University (EV 31) ................................................................................................... 121 Memorandum by Brian Deer (EV 32) ..................................................................... 122 Memorandum by David Powell (EV 33) .................................................................. 126 Memorandum by Professor Francisco Lacerda (EV 35) ......................................... 134 Memorandum Submitted by Law Reform Committee (EV 36) ................................ 137 Memorandum submitted by Dr Andrew Lewis (EV 39) ........................................... 154 Memorandum by Alex Hilton (EV 40) ..................................................................... 161 Memorandum by John Gray (EV 41) ...................................................................... 162 Memorandum by the Media and Communications Committee of the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia (EV 51) ..................................................... 166 Memorandum by the Ministry of Justice (EV 54) .................................................... 172 Memorandum by Mark Warby QC (EV 55) ............................................................. 175 Memorandum by Tim Crook (EV 57) ...................................................................... 185 Memorandum Submitted by The Pirate Party UK (EV 58) ...................................... 190 Memorandum Submitted by Full Fact (EV 59) ........................................................ 195 Memorandum by Robert Dougans (EV 60) ............................................................ 197 Memorandum by Jeff Williams (EV 61) .................................................................. 205 Memorandum by Hardeep Singh (EV 62) ............................................................... 211 Memorandum by Robert Whitfield (EV 63) ............................................................. 215 Memorandum by the Federation of Small Businesses (EV 65) .............................. 218 Supplementary Memorandum by The Law Society (EV 66) ................................... 219 Memorandum by the British Medical Association (EV 01) Memorandum by the British Medical Association (EV 01) The British Medical Association (BMA) is an independent trade union and voluntary professional association which represents doctors from all branches of medicine all over the UK. It has a total membership of over 144,000. The BMA welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee‘s inquiry on the draft Defamation Bill. The BMA will also be separately responding to the issues raised by the Ministry of Justice‘s (MoJ) consultation on the draft Bill. Many of the questions in the MoJ consultation refer to technical legal matters in this area, such as the repeal of specific legal instruments, the relationship between common law and statute and questions of qualified and absolute privilege that are outwith the BMA‘s expertise. Our comments are therefore limited to the impact on scientific and medical discourse. As a professional association for doctors, the BMA is strongly committed to open scientific debate. Health is clearly a critical factor in human wellbeing, and advances in medical science have made enormous contributions to individual and public welfare. Scientific progress, however, largely comes about by experimentation and research, and robust public debate is essential to the contesting and clarification of both scientific evidence and explanatory theories that may emerge from it. Without critical analysis, scientific progress can be inhibited and opportunities for improving the health of individuals and populations lost. The BMA has been concerned for some time that English libel law may be inhibiting free and open discussion of matters of critical public concern in the sciences. While the BMA fully shares the Secretary of State for Justice‘s view that defamation law must strike the right balance between defending freedom of speech and the protection of reputation, there is evidence to suggest that the current libel laws can favour the protection of powerful reputation over the public interest in scientific debate. In recent years, the frequently cited cases of British Chiropractic Association v Singh and Rath v Goldacre have drawn attention to the limits of legitimate comment on matters of clear public interest. Both cases involved reputable science writers raising questions about the evidence base of particular therapeutic interventions. Rather than respond directly to the criticisms, the opposing parties both chose to sue. Given that the potential cost of defending a libel action is prohibitive and the current law is widely regarded as lacking a robust public interest defence, the threat of libel action can inhibit a willingness to publish critical commentary even where the issues at stake are far from trivial and the criticisms are both reasonable and well- intentioned. Rather than respond to the detailed questions outlined in the Committee‘s call for evidence, the BMA would like to make the following general points: Memorandum by the British Medical Association (EV 01) Overall, the BMA would like to see enhanced consideration of the public interest defence in relation to responsible publication. Given that the costs of defending libel actions can act as a strong disincentive to publication of comment or opinion that may be in the public interest, consideration should be given to reducing their costs. The BMA therefore supports further exploration of matters such as the development of new procedures to resolve key preliminary issues at an early stage and the removal of the presumption in favour of a jury trial. To conclude, the BMA strongly supports the protection and promotion of a free scientific commons. Open debate acts as a critical spur to intellectual innovation. Although individuals who have been defamed should have proper recourse to procedures to defend their reputations, this should not be allowed to inhibit the reasonable expression of opinion, or the critical discussion of matters of evidence. Although the BMA does not have specific legal expertise in this area, it nevertheless strongly supports the Government‘s general direction of travel. April 2011 3 Memorandum by Mr T Ewing (EV 02) Memorandum by Mr T Ewing (EV 02) I am writing to make representations regarding the draft Defamation Bill being considered by the Joint Committee of the House. In addition to these representations, I would wish to give oral evidence relating to these proposals. I would make the following points. ADDITIONAL MEASURES FOR INCLUSION IN THE BILL POSSIBLE CRIMINAL OFFENCE TO REPLACE CRIMINAL LIBEL I would suggest that where a newspaper publishes material that is both offensive and defamatory, there doesn‘t appear to be any proper remedy at the moment so far as the criminal law is concerned. Prosecutions for Criminal Libel were rare and difficult, as it had to be proved that the material was both defamatory and wasn‘t published for the public benefit. The provisions of the Law of Libel Act 1845 were cumbersome and out of date and have been rightly repealed. Prosecutions under the Public Order Act 1986 would also now prove equally difficult, as would one using the Malicious Communications Act 1988, for the reason that the articles aren‘t communicated directly to any specified person. I would suggest that a new statutory offence be created, that was easy to apply by prosecutors such as the CPS in situations that warranted a criminal prosecution of a newspaper, its editor and any journalists concerned. The offence would be punishable by up to 5 and 10 years imprisonment respectively at the Crown Court and six months at the Magistrates‘ Court and triable
Recommended publications
  • In the End, Truth Will out - Or Will It

    In the End, Truth Will out - Or Will It

    Missouri Law Review Volume 52 Issue 2 Spring 1987 Article 2 Winter 1987 In the End, Truth Will Out - Or Will It Donald L. Magnetti Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Donald L. Magnetti, In the End, Truth Will Out - Or Will It, 52 MO. L. REV. (1987) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol52/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Magnetti: Magnetti: In the End "IN THE END, TRUTH WILL OUT" ...OR WILL IT? "MERCHANT OF VENICE," ACT II, SCENE 2 Donald L. Magnetti* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 299 II. Tim COMMON LAW OF DEFAMATION ....................... 300 III. Tim New York Times RULE: PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THE MEDIA 307 DEFENDANT ............................................ IV. THE PUBLIC FIGURE PLAINTI=: Gertz v. Robert Welch ...... 311 V. DEVELOPMENTS AFTER Gertz .............................. 318 A. Forum Shopping ................................... 318 B. Post-Gertz Decisions Add to the Confusion ........... 320 C. The Dun and Bradstreet Decision - A "Side-Step"... 326 D. Falsity - The Essence of a Defamation Action ....... 329 The Neutral Reportage Privilege ..................... 329 PriorRestraint Cases ............................... 331 The "False Light" Cases ............................ 332 The "Fictionalization" Cases ........................ 334 The "Libel-ProofPlaintiff" and "Subsidiary Libel" 336 D octrines.......................................... The Issue of Falsity ................................ 339 Sum mary .......................................... 342 VI. PROPOSED REMEDIES FOR IE DEFAMED PLAINT ..........
  • Chapter 9 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 Which Was Introduced by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Act 2005 and Commenced on 23 February 2006

    Chapter 9 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 Which Was Introduced by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Amendment Act 2005 and Commenced on 23 February 2006

    PROTECTING REPUTATION DEFAMATION PRACTICE, PROCEDURE AND PRECEDENTS THE MANUAL by Peter Breen Protecting Reputation Defamation Practice, Procedure and Precedents THE MANUAL © Peter Breen 2014 Peter Breen & Associates Solicitors 164/78 William Street East Sydney NSW 2011 Tel: 0419 985 145 Fax: (02) 9331 3122 Email: [email protected] www.defamationsolicitor.com.au Contents Section 1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 Section 2 Current developments and recent cases ................................................. 5 Section 3 Relevant legislation and jurisdiction ..................................................... 11 3.1 Uniform Australian defamation laws since 2006 ........................................ 11 3.2 New South Wales law [Defamation Act 2005] ........................................... 11 3.3 Victoria law [Defamation Act 2005] .......................................................... 13 3.4 Queensland law [Defamation Act 2005] ..................................................... 13 3.5 Western Australia law [Defamation Act 2005] .......................................... 13 3.6 South Australia law [Defamation Act 2005] .............................................. 14 3.7 Tasmania law [Defamation Act 2005] ........................................................ 14 3.8 Northern Territory law [Defamation Act 2006] .......................................... 15 3.9 Australian Capital Territory law [Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002] ............. 15 3.10
  • Defamation in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland

    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
  • The First Amendment in the Second Circuit: Reflections on Edwards V

    The First Amendment in the Second Circuit: Reflections on Edwards V

    St. John's Law Review Volume 65 Number 3 Volume 65, Summer 1991, Number 3 Article 6 The First Amendment in the Second Circuit: Reflections on Edwards v. National Audobon Society, Inc., the Past and the Future Floyd Abrams Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT: REFLECTIONS ON EDWARDS v. NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY INC., THE PAST AND THE FUTURE FLOYD ABRAMS* INTRODUCTION So often in its first century has the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit led the nation in the articulation of legal principles that it comes as no surprise to us when it does so again. But we pay a price for our expectations. As readers of Second Circuit opin- ions, we become jaded by the court's accomplishments-as if Ricky Henderson added one more stolen base to his record or Pete Rose eked out yet another hit. Some decisions that are recognized in their own field as being of the highest significance consequently fail to receive the more general legal recognition they deserve. In this offering I discuss one such case-a ruling, both creative and controversial, of the Court of Appeals in 1977 which remains a landmark in both libel law and first amendment law and which typifies, in my view, the extraordi- nary vision of the Second Circuit.1 I.
  • Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud,' Charges BMJ Deborah Brauser Authors and Disclosures

    Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud,' Charges BMJ Deborah Brauser Authors and Disclosures

    Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud,' Charges BMJ Deborah Brauser Authors and Disclosures January 6, 2011 — BMJ is publishing a series of 3 articles and editorials charging that the study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues linking the childhood measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to a "new syndrome" of regressive autism and bowel disease was not just bad science but "an elaborate fraud." According to the first article published in BMJ today by London-based investigative reporter Brian Deer, the study's investigators altered and falsified medical records and facts, misrepresented information to families, and treated the 12 children involved unethically. In addition, Mr. Wakefield accepted consultancy fees from lawyers who were building a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers, and many of the study participants were referred by an antivaccine organization. In an accompanying editorial, BMJ Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee, MD, Deputy BMJ Editor Jane Smith, and Associate BMJ Editor Harvey Marcovitch write that there is no doubt that Mr. Wakefield perpetrated fraud. "A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in 1 direction; misreporting was gross." A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in 1 direction; misreporting was gross. Although The Lancet published a retraction of the study last year right after the UK General Medical Council (GMC) announced that the investigators acted "dishonestly" and irresponsibly," the BMJ editors Dr.
  • Brave New World of Zero Risk: Covert Strategy in British Science Policy

    Brave New World of Zero Risk: Covert Strategy in British Science Policy

    Brave New World of Zero Risk: Covert Strategy in British Science Policy Martin J Walker Slingshot Publications September 2005 For Marxists and neo liberals alike it is technological advance that fuels economic development, and economic forces that shape society. Politics and culture are secondary phenomena, sometimes capable of retarding human progress; but in the last analysis they cannot prevail against advancing technology and growing productivity. John Gray1 The Bush government is certainly not the first to abuse science, but they have raised the stakes and injected ideology like no previous administration. The result is scientific advisory panels stacked with industry hacks, agencies ignoring credible panel recommendations and concerted efforts to undermine basic environmental and conservation biology science. Tim Montague2 A professional and physician-based health care system which has grown beyond tolerable bounds is sickening for three reasons: it must produce clinical damages which outweigh its potential benefits; it cannot but obscure the political conditions which render society unhealthy; and it tends to expropriate the power of the individual to heal himself and to shape his or her environment. Ivan Illich3 Groups of experts, academics, science lobbyists and supporters of industry, hiding behind a smoke screen of `confidentiality' have no right to assume legislative powers for which they have no democratic mandate. The citizens and their elected representatives are ethically competent to democratically evaluate and shape their own future. Wilma Kobusch4 1 The New Yorker. Volume 52, Number 13 · August 11, 2005. John Gray, ‘The World is Round’. A review of The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century by Thomas L.
  • The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice

    The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice

    UCLA UCLA Entertainment Law Review Title When the Slander is the Story:The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0d65t53k Journal UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 17(1) ISSN 1073-2896 Author Laidman, Dan Publication Date 2010 DOI 10.5070/LR8171027133 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California When the Slander is the Story:The Neutral Reportage Privilege in Theory and Practice Dan Laidman* I. INTRODUCTION It is an angry time in American politics. Members of Congress have disputed the President's citizenship and accused him of promoting "Nazi" policies,' an ex-President has called a Congressman racist,2 and a member of the House of Representatives publicly questioned the sanity of a constituent who compared the President to Adolph Hitler.3 Traditional media outlets have chronicled the comments and then countless websites have republished them, leading some to find a causal connection between the explosions in new media and political rhetoric.' On the local level, municipal politics continue to generate fierce disputes which often lead to allegations of slander involving public officials.5 Only now, with the collapse of the * J.D., UCLA School of Law, 2010. Many thanks to Professor Gia Lee at UCLA Law School and to Joseph Doherty, director of the school's Empirical Research Group. 1 See Andie Coller, G.O.P. 'Cranks' Dominating Debate, POLITICO, Sept. 10, 2009, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27015.html. 2 See Jeff Zeleny & Jim Rutenberg, White House is Sitting Out Race Debate, N.Y.
  • The Write Stuff the Journal of the European Medical Writers Association

    The Write Stuff the Journal of the European Medical Writers Association

    wstuf0605-pp.qxp 27.6.2005 12:59 Page 1 The Write Stuff The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association Greetings from Malta www.emwa.org Vol. 14, No.3, 2005 wstuf0605-pp.qxp 27.6.2005 12:59 Page 2 The Write Stuff 77tthh AAuuttuummnn MMeeeettiinngg Radisson Edwardian Hotel, Manchester, UK. Your Executive Committee has the pleasure of inviting you to the 7th autumn meeting in sunny Manchester on the 24th to the 26th of November 2005. Originally founded in the 1st century by the Romans and named Mamucium, Manchester became a city of renown during the industrial revolution at which time it was consid- ered the heart of the British Empire. As a thriving metrop- olis, which still produces more than half of Britain's manu- factured goods and consumables, Manchester has acquired a mixed reputation. However, recent international events of some acclaim, such as the success of Manchester United, the 2002 Commonwealth Games and the soon to be held EMWA Autumn Conference are raising the profile of the city. Our conference will be located at the Radisson Edwardian. A hotel ideally suited to combine the learning and network- ing opportunities available at the EMWA meetings with the cultural delights Manchester has to offer. The programme of workshops will cover many aspects of medical writing, and will also include some of our new Advanced workshops. Keep an eye on our website (www.emwa.org) for regular updates and further details. If you are looking for premier educational experiences for medical communicators the Manchester meeting holds great promise with the added attraction of discovering what the city has to offer.
  • Table of Statutes

    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
  • Defamation Act 2013 Is up to Date with All Changes Known to Be in Force on Or Before 05 September 2021

    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.
  • Jurisdiction Over Communication Torts

    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.
  • Rethinking Sullivan: New Approaches in Australia, New Zealand and England

    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.