Suing Media for Libel: A Litigation Study

This article summarizes the results of a study of 291 reported cases brought against media for libel during a four-year period. The results confirmed the finding in an earlier study that only 5 percent of plaintiffs emerged from the appellate process with judgments compared with more than 60 percent of defendants. Most of the defense successes occurred without trial. In cases that did reach trial, plaintiffs were successful far more often before juries than before judges but lost more than half these judgments on appeal. Cases were analyzed in terms of the identity of the parties, the content of the charges, and the role of state and federal law in shaping the outcome. Despite the recent attention to federal constitutional protections, it is clear that media defendants still do, and must, rely heavily on state law defenses. Finally, the Hutchinson and Wolston rulings of 1979 produced little change in appellate decisions.     

The Protection of Reputation in Japan: A Systematic Analysis of Defamation Cases

Although Japanese defamation law has been a subject of legal interest for scholars and judges, their main focus was the defamation rules that appeared in cases publicized by legal reporters. The following study coded 232 defamation cases against the media that were decided in district courts in Japan, according to the type of database that reported the cases. Statistical results reveal that newspapers are more likely to report defamation cases than other databases because stories about defamation cases may satisfy readers' interest or because the newspaper might have been informed by plaintiffs who won their cases. The results also show that the professional status of the plaintiff is a predictor of the case outcome. Politicians and officials are less likely to win in defamation cases than are executives and criminals, and they received lower damages than athletes and entertainers.     

"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.     

The Normative Foundations of Defamatory Meaning

This paper assesses normative arguments regarding four views about defamatory meaning. The moralised view holds that a statement about a person is defamatory if and only if we ought to think less of that person if the statement is true. The nonmoralised view holds that a statement is defamatory if and only if people in fact think less of the subject on hearing the statement. A third - the dual view - can be split into two versions. The first version holds that a statement is defamatory if and only if it satisfies either the moralised or non-moralised views. The second version holds that statements satisfying either view can be defamatory, but they ought to be considered fundamentally different forms of personal defamation, with different remedies, defences and conditions of liability attached. Both the moralised and non-moralised views are rejected because they fail to acknowledge instrumental and intrinsic reputational value respectively. The first version of the dual view is rejected because it compromises the expressive value of defamation, implausibly suggests that truth should be a general defence and fails to recognise that different objections apply to the moralised and nonmoralised views. The upshot is that we ought to accept the second version of the dual view.     

“Error But Without Malice” in Defamation of Public Officials: The Value of Free Expression in International Human Rights Law

Government officials in various parts of the world use defamation to silence critics, but defamation liability may curtail freedom of expression on topics of public interest and undermine human rights generally. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression unless a state can show need to protect individual reputation and acts proportionally. In its adjudication of complaints for violations of Article 19, and in its General Comment 34, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has crafted the principle that defamation liability may not be imposed if an erroneous statement about a public official was made in “error but without malice.” Although soft law, General Comment 34 represents the committee's most compelling articulation of the values animating freedom of expression in international human rights law, and chief among the values is the role played by free expression to promote realization of all human rights.     

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。     

Defamation in cyberspace: A Japanese perspective

The aim of this paper is two-fold: first, to introduce how Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with the case of on-line defamation, which is arguably one of the most acute problems in modern society, and second, to critically examine the efficacy of such an approach. The recent decision of the Supreme Court in on-line defamation (as oppose to off-line defamation) will be introduced as an exemplar of the way Japanese law and its jurisprudence have dealt with such an acute problem. A first step will be to provide, by way of background, a brief overview of how defamation in a conventional sense has been treated by the Japanese legal system. The second step will be to outline how the Japanese jurisdiction has dealt with on-line defamation, that is to say, to what extent the Japanese court regulates on-line defamatory comments made by the ordinary people. A third step will be to examine the efficacy of such an approach, and the final step will be to examine whether the UK court can learn a lesson from the Japanese jurisdiction. The author will draw upon Japanese jurisprudence, in order to consider whether a valuable lesson might be offered to the UK jurisdiction.     

名誉权与言论自由:宣科案中的是非与轻重

本文围绕不久前审结的一场名誉权诉讼展开讨论。文章首先分析了该案涉及的事实和法律问题;然后揭示并讨论了该案中被遮蔽和忽略的具有重要意义的宪法问题;最后则对法院审理名誉权诉讼时应当遵循的原则作了进一步的讨论。本文的基本观点是名誉权诉讼包含了公民人格尊严和言论自由两种基本权利之间的紧张关系。处理名誉权诉讼的正确办法不是先验地确定何种权利当然地具有优先性,而是在民主宪政的一般原则之下,根据每一案件的具体情况,判断什么是最值得保护的价值,并在此基础上平衡各种不同利益。     

Information Conduits or Content Developers? Determining Whether News Portals Should Enjoy Blanket Immunity from Defamation Suits

News portals should be held to the same standard of liability for defamation as other news media. Internet service providers (ISPs) enjoy blanket immunity from liability for defamation under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, while information content providers (ICPs) might not. Some courts have indicated, however, that a defendant who participates in developing third-party content should be classified as an ICP and thus be held liable. Confusion over the difference between an ISP and an ICP is applied to the case of news portals. This study investigates to what extent news portals should enjoy immunity from liability for defamation. To determine a news portal's exposure to liability, a continuum of involvement is proposed as a standard in which liability is based on a defendant's actions and not on the medium employed. A defendant's involvement with third-party content can be classified under the four levels of the continuum, which can guide courts in deciding whether a defendant is liable. Congress should amend Section 230 to incorporate the continuum and allow courts discretion in determining whether a defendant is immune from liability.     

英美诽谤法的特殊抗辩事由研究

英美诽谤法为实现保护言论自由和尊重个人名誉的平衡,设计了诸多精细的特殊抗辩事由,包括以真实性作为完全抗辩的依据;涉及公共利益的、基于事实的、真诚的公允评论;法律授予特殊场合的特权抗辩(绝对特权和受约制特权)及制定法规定的严格责任抗辩事由.这些抗辩事由使英美法诽谤法实现了法益平衡的目的.     

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.     

过错与抗辩：以名誉权侵权为重点

不法性不应作为一般侵权行为的构成要件,而应由过错要件吸收。过错本质上为主观范畴,但其衡量标准可以客观化。言论自由与名誉权同属宪法规定的基本权,法律应慎重处理二者冲突的情形。名誉权侵权中应区分不同的行为人主体和被报道对象而作具体分析。其中,过错具有独特含义:就故意而言,应指言论发表人对该言论的虚假性明知或对其真假完全的漠不关心;就过失而言,应指言论发表人未尽一般理性人的注意义务。行为人享有除真实性抗辩外的多种无过错抗辩。     

Defining Defamation: Community in the Age of the Internet

The ability to instantly communicate with a global audience has created numerous legal uncertainties as jurists struggle to adapt age-old jurisprudence to modern-day technologies —and defamation jurisprudence is no exception. The definition of a plaintiff's community is critical to his or her ability to succeed in a defamation lawsuit, often determining whether the plaintiff is a public figure or whether the plaintiff's reputation has been injured in his or her community. This article examines federal and state defamation jurisprudence to compare the factors courts have used to define community in both traditional print and broadcast cases with the factors used in more recent Internet defamation cases. It then suggests three possible rubrics courts could employ to more uniformly define community in Internet defamation cases.     

Arab Defamation Laws: A Comparative Analysis of Libel and Slander in the Middle East

Nations in the Arab world are known for their restrictions on press freedom, with public officials often using defamation laws to hinder good journalism. To promote reform, this article analyzes defamation laws of six Arab countries – Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya and the United Arab Emirates – and compares them to international norms. In areas with strong press protections, three characteristics related to defamation law were identified. First, defamation cases should be handled by civil lawsuits rather than police complaints, so journalists are not threatened with jail for their reporting. Second, the law must afford greater scrutiny for public figures than for private individuals so that the powerful cannot stifle public debate. Third, truth must be an absolute defense against allegations of defamation, so that people cannot protect an undeserving good reputation. The analysis reveals that defamation provisions in these countries are not in alignment with international norms.     

事实陈述、意见表达与公益性言论保护——最高法院1993年《名誉权问题解答》第8条之检讨

言论自由与名誉权同属宪法基本权利,无位阶先后之分,二者的平衡应在个案中实现。言论分为事实与意见,二者的区分是规则建立的基础。对于事实,真实是基础性要求,但真实并非一定不诽谤,不真实也不一定必然诽谤,表面的、片面的真实事实暗示虚假事实亦可构成诽谤。合理查证是判断事实是否诽谤的基本标准,我国不宜引进真实恶意原则。对于意见,应坚持合理评论原则。善意地针对可受公评事项发表言论不构成侮辱,侮辱不必然导致名誉受损。以事实为基础的评论应将合理查证与合理评论相结合,评论的空间应尽量宽广。     

Documenting Fair Use: Has the Statement of Best Practices Loosened the Fair Use Reins for Documentary Filmmakers?

The United States Copyright Act allows for fair use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, but federal courts have been inconsistent in rulings on copyright infringement cases in which documentary filmmakers claim fair use. This can be problematic for documentarians, who often use copyrighted materials. The 2005 “Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use” addressed this inconsistency by providing guidelines for filmmakers. This article analyzes relevant federal cases before and after the statement in which a documentary filmmaker was sued under the Copyright Act for infringement and in which a court addressed the issue of whether the use was fair. A case analysis shows that federal rulings have become slightly more accommodating toward the use of copyrighted material in documentaries and the use of copyrighted video in general since the statement was introduced. The statement's relevance to fair use case law is also examined.     

Toward Reform of Defamation Law in the British Caribbean: Efforts at Reform in the United Kingdom and Jamaica

The ongoing review of defamation laws by the Jamaican government has sharpened the focus on the need to identify appropriate standards for public officials in libel actions in light of the growing recognition of a need for transparency. Conventional wisdom speaks to the indispensable role of the media to inform the public of government activities to facilitate the democratic process. Jamaica's unique history of colonialism, underdevelopment and poverty has led to a political system based on pork barrel economics – inimical to government transparency so necessary in a democracy. This article explores how British, Caribbean and U.S. jurisdictions have sought to manage the paradigm shift between the right to reputation and the need to ensure responsible and accountable governance. The aim is to identify a path of reform for Caribbean defamation law that ensures greater public official accountability and better incorporates twenty-first century notions of democracy.     

Some Cases from the Defamation Jurisdiction of the Archdeaconry of Richmond

Unusually, the archdeaconry of Richmond had two consistory courts, one in Chester and one in Richmond. This may well be the first study to be based upon the Richmond records. The mid-sixteenth century ‘explosion’ in the ecclesiastical defamation workload which other commentators have identified was being felt later, possibly by as much as a century, in Richmond than anywhere else in the country. The Richmond records provide the first firm evidence that the ecclesiastical courts were prepared to countenance defamation actions based upon the wrongful imputation of murder. Allegations of sexual irregularity were by far the most common subject of ecclesiastical defamation actions. Women were most likely to complain about allegations concerning their constancy; men for those touching upon their probity.     

Pattwena of harm: An analysis of gender and defamation

This article explores whether the law of defamation is gender‐specific. Through a quantitative and historical analysis of libel and slander cases, the study indicates that when women brought actions against those who assaulted their reputations their likelihood of being awarded judicial remedy was unalterably linked to their sexual identity. The study examined 278 appellate cases brought by both male and female plaintiffs during two decades in United States history when emergent women's rights movements were pronounced, the late 19th century and the mid‐20th century.