The online defamation maze: are we finding a way out?

The main purpose of this paper is to examine the efficacy of the first decision that explored online defamation (as opposed to offline defamation) delivered by the Supreme Court of Japan. A discussion of the future implications of the case is then undertaken. The paper supports the First Instance (the Tokyo District Court) decision and its approach, and argues that such an approach might have provided greater implications for the future. The author also argues that the Tokyo District Court seems to have taken a more reflective view on the fluidity of online defamation and the nature of the online environment, and shows a degree of willingness to accept and incorporate such a nature. The author concludes that the Tokyo District Court's approach, although it could be seen as rather radical and extreme, seems to be more persuasive than that of the Supreme Court. It also submits that the court might have brought a more balanced and healthy outcome for the beneficiaries, including not only the claimants, the defendants, but also society as a whole. It is the case that innocent internet users can potentially be both the passive and active recipients of the information (i.e. comments posted on webpage). Before a detailed analysis and examination of the case is undertaken, a brief outline of how Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with the traditional form of defamation (i.e. offline defamation) is provided as background.     

网络诽谤行为的法律规制及其完善

利用互联网全新媒体实施诽谤与传统诽谤相比较具有新的特点,寻求网络言论自由与保护名誉权、隐私权的平衡成为了网络时代更为突出的问题．网络诽谤责任主体具有多元性。网络诽谤法律规制应从适度区分公众人物与非公众人物,赋予新闻媒体的合理报道权,适度规定网络服务提供者的相应责任,实际损害赔偿、精神损害赔偿与惩罚性赔偿相结合等角度加以完善．     

"For the Protection of the Reputation or Rights of Others ": The European Court of Human Rights' Interpretation of the Defamation Exception in Article 10(2)

Legal observers have praised the European Court of Human Rights' defamation case law as an example to be emulated in international law. Yet scholars who have studied the court's defamation jurisprudence have focused primarily on a handful of the court's noteworthy cases. A broader examination of the court's entire body of defamation case law provides a complete picture of the court's defamation jurisprudence. The ECHR's defamation case law has come increasingly to mirror principles of common law and United States First Amendment law. Although the ECHR has produced some commendable judgments protecting speech critical of governments and politicians, it has developed a hierarchy of protected expression that leaves other expression vulnerable to restriction. Further, even though the court has condemned several specific criminal defamation prosecutions, it has failed to strike down, and has expressly condoned, criminal defamation in general.     

英国2013诽谤法对ISP的最新规定及对我国的启示

2013年英国颁布了诽谤法修正案,其第5条对ISP进行了有针对性的立法,以ISP是否对发布的内容有影响或控制为标准,将ISP分为两类,并适用不同的责任构成,将通知即删除原则成文化,同时制定了明确的适用的规则。其总体方向是在坚持传统的基础上,确保法律与时俱进并且适用;在平衡言论自由与名誉权的基础上,寻求在最大程度上保护ISP而不是承担责任。英国2013诽谤法使我们从现实合理性方面审视我国网络诽谤立法及ISP现状,据此提出《侵权责任法》第36条第3款的修改意见及我国将来的网络诽谤立法或司法适用的一些基本原则。     

Corporate Chaos: The Muddled Jurisprudence of Corporate Public Figures

Public-figure determinations in libel law are enormously consequential legal decisions. The divide between public and private status for a defamation plaintiff can be – and frequently is – determinative of whether that plaintiff can succeed. Lower court rulings on how corporate plaintiffs fit into this status determination are inconsistent. Meanwhile, corporations are taking increasingly active roles in political and social controversies. This article explores the sprawling and contradictory law of corporate public figures, analyzing and critiquing lower court jurisprudence on this vital issue. The article also provides a suggested direction for clarifying the state of the law and aligning it more closely with important First Amendment values.     

Privacy,anonymity and liability: Will anonymous communicators have the last laugh?

In this paper, the author sets out the way in which the UK approach to privacy protection is able to extend its reach to anonymous postings. Whilst anonymity might sometimes be seen as one of the essential characteristics of communicating on-line, it does not provide an impenetrable veil of protection in respect of a privacy violation claim. Instead, there are avenues available to identify anonymous communicators, which have implications both for internet freedom and jurisdiction in cyberspace. In the UK, our common law has not denied bloggers, or other on-line contributors, anonymity per se. However, it will be argued that recent UK judgments represent a warning to anonymous communicators that they can be held liable for what they post on-line and that naivety is no defence at law. Whilst on-line platforms allow people to effectively become journalists; to become publishers, as familiar users, they should become more aware of the consequences of their on-line postings and appreciate that they will not be able to escape from the application of third party disclosure orders. However, as these are not without their problems, it is possible that anonymous communicators may have the last laugh.     

浅议涉外网络名誉侵权案件的管辖权问题

涉外网络名誉侵权行为的实施地不易确定,损害结果地为数众多,传统民事管辖权的规则面临挑战,目前国际上在理论和司法实践中存在着不同的观点和做法。我国立法也没有明确的规定。针对网络名誉侵权行为的特点,网络名誉侵权案件应由侵权行为地法院或被告住所地法院管辖,侵权行为地包括实施被诉侵权行为的网络服务器、计算机终端等设备所在地和受害人受损害的结果地,损害结果地是指诽谤言论的传播地,同时又是原告的住所地或居所地或工商营业所所在地或法人的营业地,如果侵权行为地和损害结果地不一致,由原告选择管辖法院。     

The legal implications of student use of social networking sites in the UK and US: current concerns and lessons for the future

This paper provides a comparative snapshot of the current state of the law in the US and UK with respect to potential liability of university and college students for use (and misuse) of social networking sites. It reviews the limited case law on this topic, highlights the differences in the two nations’ laws of defamation and the various possible legal claims available to individuals allegedly harmed by postings on these social networking sites, and concludes that neither country currently offers a satisfactory legal or quasi-legal model for resolving these disputes.     

Legal Pluralism and the Adjudication of Internet Disputes

No single entity-academic, corporate, governmental or non-profit-administers the Internet. (American Civil Liberties Union v Reno \[E.D. Pa. 1996] 929 F. Supp. 824, 832) The problems of regulation on the Internet are simply stated. First, it allows novel activities: e-mail, electronic discussion groups, simple transfer or viewing of text, images, sound and video. These activities may fall foul of laws of obscenity or defamation in some or all of the jurisdictions in which it is available. Second, the Internet is a distributed system that straddles geographical and jurisdictional boundaries; the regulation of such activities is likely to fall within two or more national 'legal' jurisdictions. It may therefore be difficult to choose an appropriate jurisdiction. Third, the inevitable need to choose a jurisdiction will mean that the values to be imposed upon the dispute will be the values of that jurisdiction, values that may be different from the values of those involved in the dispute. Much has been written on the first two problems and significant developments have been made in the formulation of principles to be applied to the problem of choosing a jurisdiction. In this paper, I will begin to focus on the third problem, the problem of inappropriate values being imposed upon Internet behaviour. The paper will develop the theme that the need for a single jurisdiction and, in consequence, the need for a single set of values to be imposed upon Internet activities is a fiction born out of centralist systems of western jurisprudence. The paper will review how courts have turned against pluralistic approaches in the past when dealing with clashes in cultural and religious values, particularly the clash in the English courts in the case of Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses'. Western courts have been dismissive of cultural and religious claims either treating them as 'repugnant' or contrary to public policy, or else questioning the validity of the motives of the applicants. It is evident from recent cases in the US, that judges will use similar techniques to impose their own value values upon Internet activity. The concept of legal pluralism is not recognised within westernised systems of law. The paper will then consider whether a more pluralistic strategy would provide a more satisfactory approach to dealing with such disputes on the Internet: an approach that would enable the resolution of the conflict between different cultural and religious values.     

Clashing conceptions of press duties: Public journalists and the courts

This article bridges the growing, but controversial, public journalism movement with First Amendment jurisprudence and libel law. It examines whether the movement finds support in laws that affect the press and, in particular, in court‐created defenses and privileges that protect journalists in modern defamation law. Do defenses that safeguard journalists in their traditional routines as fact gatherers and reporters also protect them in the kinds of roles and duties envisioned by public journalism advocates? Furthermore, has the United States Supreme Court, in non‐defamation cases involving the First Amendment, expressed concern for protecting what might be called the “public journalism functions” of the press? Does the Court create a different image for the press than the one envisioned by public journalism advocates? This article addresses these questions. It ultimately concludes that public journalists and courts have two very different conceptions about the role that journalists play in a democracy.     

CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENT WITH FOREIGN ELEMENTS IN CHINA: SHANDONG JUFENG V. SOUTH KOREA MGAME

Unlike statutory and discretionary jurisdiction, jurisdiction by choice of court agreement concluded in foreign-related civil and commercial matters should be decided by the parties. As a special contract, the choice of court agreement is so independent that its validity is governed by the law chosen by the parties or by the law of the country where the chosen court is situated in case that the choice of law is invalid. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as “CPL”) of People’s Republic of China (2012) should not only include the jurisdiction by choice of court agreement with foreign-related elements, but also stipulate it in a more standardized way, rather than simply refer to provision of jurisdiction by choice of court agreement in domestic cases. At the same time, the CPL should make the scope of application of choice of court agreement more clear, and provide choice of law clause and its confirmative elements when deciding its effectiveness.     

Scope of jurisdiction online and the importance of messaging – lessons from Australia and the EU

Where a court makes an order, for example, requiring an Internet platform to block or remove content, it has several options. The order can be limited to content displayed locally, it can apply to that content globally, or something in-between. This – the matter of ‘scope of jurisdiction’ – is gaining increasing attention and was the central issue in two recent decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).In this article, I examine those two decisions. I then compare that to how Australian courts have dealt with scope of jurisdiction and I map out what we can learn from these cases. In doing so, I place emphasis on the importance of messaging and the need for judicial activism.     

Applications for release by Australians in Victoria found not guilty of offences of violence by reason of mental impairment

Much research in relation to mental illness and the law has concentrated upon when accused persons are entitled to avail themselves of the defence of not guilty by reason of insanity or mental impairment. However, the decision as to when persons found not guilty by such pleas should be released step by step back into the community involves difficult analyses of the risk of recidivism by persons who have committed serious acts of violence whilst mentally ill. This article analyses some 70 cases heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Australia since the jurisdiction to make such decisions has been transferred from the executive arm of government to the judiciary. The jurisprudence generated by the Victorian Supreme Court constitutes Australia's most developed law in relation to prediction of dangerousness. This article evaluates the different and subtle dynamics that have influenced the judges in an increasingly sophisticated way to grapple with the phenomenon of mental illness in deciding when persons who have already killed can safely be released from involuntary detention status within the confines of a forensic psychiatric institution back into the general community.     

Anti-SLAPP Law Reform in Australia

The last 20 years has seen a growth in litigation against public participation in Australia and a broadening of the mechanisms used. Following changes to the defamation laws in 2005, commercial torts are increasingly being used against critics and protest groups. Australia's highest profile example, the so-called 'Gunns 20' case, brought the problems of such litigation into the public realm and provided a major impetus for law reform. One Australian jurisdiction has now adopted limited anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) legislation and SLAPPs are being raised in the context of national debates over a Human Rights Act. However, comprehensive anti-SLAPP law reform is still some way off.     

The Assumption of Jurisdiction: Parliament,the King's Council and the College of Justice in Sixteenth-Century Scotland

This article considers how the Scottish Court of Session developed out of the restricted jurisdiction of the medieval King's Council, and achieved recognition as a supreme civil court during the sixteenth century, thereby assimilating the main judicial role of the medieval Scottish Parliament. It argues that the change resulted not from any particular legislative or judicial decision but from a gradual assumption of jurisdiction concealed within an expansion of the scope of traditional remedies. It is argued that the most decisive step occurred when the pleading of actions on heritable title to land began to be seen as within the ambit of those remedies. It is argued that this assumption of jurisdiction had occurred by the time of the foundation of the College of Justice in 1532, precluding any development along English lines of equitable remedies outside the procedures of the common law in Scotland.     

Personal Jurisdiction in Online Expression Cases: Rejecting Minimum Contacts in Favor of Affirmative Acts

When a speaker injures a party through online communication, the initial inquiry becomes how and where the injured party may recover damages from the internet speaker within the constitutional limits established by the 'Due Process Clause' of the constitution on the places where a plaintiff may choose to sue a defendant. The due process limits were created to prevent a plaintiff from suing a non-resident defendant in a resident's court system unless the defendant had enough contact with the state to reasonably anticipate being sued there. As cyberspace renders moot much of the geographical principles upon which jurisdictions rely, the issue of personal jurisdiction-the involuntary imposition of a forum state's legal power-emerges as a threshold issue in the law of online expression. The following paper addresses the jurisprudence of American courts in the area of personal jurisdiction, illustrating the need for clarity in this critical area of the law.     

不方便法院说比较研究

“不方便法院”说是指一国法院认为某个涉外案件更适合在外国审理或者本国法院不适合审理 ,而拒不行使管辖权的一种自由裁量权。它起源于英格兰 ,后来逐渐发展成为英美国际私法上影响法院行使国际管辖权的一项重要制度。该说缺乏合理性 ,没有统一的适用标准 ,且赋予审理案件的法官过多自由裁量权 ,很容易被当事人或者法院操纵 ,往往导致适用结果的不一致。除一些普通法国家和地区外 ,其他国家都拒绝接受该说。我国法院在审理涉外案件中也不宜适用该说。     

尼日利亚法院处理涉外民商事案件的理论与实践

管辖权问题和法律适用问题是一国法院在处理涉外民商事案件时必须要解决的两个基本问题。尼日利亚法院通常依被告或诉讼标的物"出现"或"位于"其管辖权范围内、传票能够送达被告、被告接受法院的管辖或当事人之间的管辖权协议为由对涉外民商事案件行使管辖,对于涉外民商事案件的法律适用,尼日利亚法院通常适用法院地法,不过,在当事人选择了解决争议的准据法时,尼日利亚法院会尊重他们的选择。     

The Caribbean Court of Justice and the Legal Profession: Promoting a Caribbean Jurisprudence*

The author submits that the main purpose in the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is to promote the development of a Caribbean jurisprudence, based on the Commonwealth Caribbean's common historic, political, economic and cultural experiences and mutual history.

The article examines the role of final appellate courts, noting that judges of such courts must often choose between alternatives which are perfectly capable of being defended as rational, reasonable and consistent with ‘the law’. Factors such as life experiences, socialisation, and backgrounds all play a role in determining the choices that are ultimately made. This is why, the author underscores that ‘it is so important to have a diverse Bench, to have Judges from different backgrounds’.

For judges to come close to steering the right course they must have an understanding of the society that gives rise to the legal disputes. They must be grounded in that society. In this respect, the author argues, it is remarkable that the evolution of certain landmark judgments relating to human rights, particularly capital punishment, have been rendered by British judges, sitting and residing in England.

The article, which draws on a wealth of jurisprudence, proceeds to examine the original jurisdiction of the CCJ and the role of the Bar in defending the integrity of the Court and the justice system as well as in enhancing the quality of judgments.

Finally, it emphasises the need to promote Caribbean jurisprudence and access to local judgments. In this regard, it is lamented that many truly outstanding judgments of Caribbean judges do not receive the recognition they should because, if there is an appeal, they become almost automatically buried beneath the judgments of the higher court.     

媒体诽谤与权力造罪

从编发短信"诽谤"县领导被判有罪,发展到报道诽谤案的记者也被以诽谤罪立案侦查,这不仅仅是一个罪与非罪的判断问题。坚持罪刑法定原则同样要遵守程序法,司法机关不能轻易将涉嫌诽谤的自诉案件转换为公诉程序启动。对进行负面报道的记者,以诽谤罪立案值得高度警惕。开这样的先例,已经危害到正当的舆论监督权,乃至国民普遍的民主权利。避免权力造罪必须重新反思官员的"官"意识,归根到底是要进一步强化官员的公仆观,尤其是对滥用公权力者,如果尚未构成犯罪,也应令其承担相应的其他不利后果。