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.     

有利被告论探究——以实体刑法为视角

实体意义上的有利被告,作为罪刑法定与刑法的明确性原则的一条派生与补足原则,指的是当刑法适用上遇有暂时"解释不清"的疑难时,应该做出有利于被告的选择。它可以从国家作为立法者应对刑法规定不明承担的责任、刑法的人权保障机能、刑法与刑事诉讼法的立法精神、刑法的正当目的以及传统刑事政策等诸多维度得到证成。从有利被告的立场出发,在刑法解释领域,应当排除违背立法精神的不利被告的解释,允许不违背立法精神的有利被告的解释;在定罪环节,应当坚持"疑罪从无"与"罪疑惟轻"的规则:在量刑环节,应当排除违背立法精神的重刑选择,而允许不违背立法精神的轻刑选择。     

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。     

Concurrent Duties

This paper offers an account of concurrent liability, and in particular the existence of, and interaction between, concurrent contractual and non‐contractual duties. It argues for five essential propositions: (1) a defendant can owe simultaneous private law duties towards a claimant, the content of which overlaps in whole or in part; (2) cases of concurrent liability in contract and negligence involve independent duties, which are concurrent but not coextensive; (3) the doctrine of concurrent liability is conceptually distinct from the rule that the claimant must elect between inconsistent remedies; (4) if the defendant commits a wrong in breach of more than one duty, the claimant has a prima facie choice to sue for any of those breaches; and (5) the content of one any duty might affect the content of the other. The last of these principles, it is argued, provide an explanation for the recent decisions in Wellesley Partners v Withers and AIB v Mark Redler.     

Libel: Its Purpose and Reform

Discussion of libel often fails to define defamation law's purpose and thus properly to assess its value. This article argues that defamation's purpose relates to fundamental human interests in sociality, directly linked to important aspects of human health and well‐being. Protecting such interests is arguably required by the right to private life under ECHR article 8 and should not count as a violation of the right to freedom of speech. Some current reform proposals are criticised as failing to appreciate the importance of protecting sociality. ‘Business’ libel, however, often protects not sociality but purely economic interests. The article therefore argues that the protection of libel law, as opposed to that offered by malicious falsehood and the economic torts, should be withdrawn from purely economic reputation, starting with removing the rights of corporations to sue in defamation, a position compatible with the ECtHR's decision in Karako v Hungary.     

Economic impact of Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 84 ALJR 497

In Wicks v State Rail Authority (NSW) (2010) 84 ALJR 497 the High Court of Australia held that, among other things, plaintiffs (who establish that they suffer a recognised psychiatric illness as a result of the breach of duty of care owed to them by the defendant under s 32 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)) are entitled to recover damages for pure mental harm under s 30 if their psychiatric injury arose "wholly or partly from" a "series of shocking experiences" in the form of "a sudden and disturbing impression on the mind and feelings" in connection with witnessing at the scene "another person ('the victim') being killed, injured or put in peril by the act or omission of the defendant". The High Court construed the phrase "being ... injured or put in peril" to include plaintiffs who suffer pure mental harm by witnessing at the scene another person being injured through the process of suffering pure mental harm in the form of psychiatric injury occasioned by the defendant's negligent act or omission. The Wicks decision raises the question whether the expanded liability of defendants for pure mental harm is economically sustainable.     

The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton: Conduct,Intention, and Justifiability

The decision in OPO v MLA [2014] EWCA Civ 1277 causes confusion to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. A strong line of authorities indicates that the defendant must either have an actual intention to cause physical injury or be reckless as to the causing of such harm, the latter being determined by the likelihood of harm being caused by the defendant's act. ‘Imputed intention’ does not form a separate category of mental state. There was also a missed opportunity to develop a ‘justifiability’ criterion, by which policy considerations can be taken into account to preclude an application of the tort. This criterion ought to be developed in a principled manner, in line with the existing jurisprudence concerning human rights and with the policy limitations as developed in the context of other torts.     

The Economics of Bail Setting and Social Welfare

In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory preference for releasing on bail an accused in custody that has not yet been convicted unless the accused is charged with very serious offence like homicide. Nonetheless, the courts are vested with the powers to decide on the quantum of bail or to even refuse bail outright. To induce the defendant to surrender for trial [Lim, B.-T., & Quah, E. (1998). Economics of bail setting. Bulletin of Economic Research, 257–264] demonstrate that the bail quantum should be based on the expected cost of punishment and the probability of re-arrest if the defendant jumps bail. However, there are costs to society if the defendant absconds, which include, inter alia, the cost of re-arresting the defendant. In this paper, we derive the optimal bail quantum on the assumption that the probability of re-arrest and the penalty for absconding are chosen by the courts whose objective function is to minimize the sum of the expected harm to society and the net costs to law enforcement if the defendant jumps bail. The cost and benefit of being released on bail are examined. A model is proposed which may be useful to the court officials in bail setting as an effective means to secure the defendant's attendance at trial as well as to achieve social equity.     

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。     

A COMPARISON OF DEFENSE STRATEGY AND RACE AS INFLUENCES IN DIFFERENTIAL SENTENCING

This study compares the influence of defense strategy and the race of the defendant on the variance in felony sentence length for a sample of 2,090 convicts in a state penal system Defense strategy includes the subsequent plea of the defendant and the type of defense counsel. Control variables are age, marital status, urban-rural childhood, education, prior criminal record, and type of crime. A comparison is made for both burglary and homicide. The findings for butglay show defense strategy explains 16.5% of the variance in sentence length (because of the type of plea), while race of the defendant explains only I% of the variance (due to the positive relationship between being black and sentence length). For homicide the unique explanation of the defense strategy model accounts for 3% of the variance (due more to type of attorney than plea), while the race of the defendant accounts for another 3% (because of the negative relationships between being Indian or Mexican-American and sentence length).     

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.     

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.     

Winners and losers and Why: A Study of Defamation litigation

This article summarizes the results of a study of 534 reported defamation cases decided over a period beginning in 1976 and ending just before the Hutchinson and Wolston decisions of mid-1979. A major aspect of the study was the comparison of media and nonmedia defamation cases, which appear quite different. Each case was studied to identify, among other things, the plaintiff and the defendant, the statement that provoked the suit, the context of that statement, the role of state and federal law in resolving the case, and the procedural stages at which each case was resolved. A follow-up study to identify changes since Hutchinson and Wolston is in progress.     

法院变更起诉罪名之研究

目前国外对法院变更指控罪名问题研究已较成熟,英美法国家以法院不能变更指控罪名为原则,以变更指控罪名为例外.而大陆法系国家的法律规定,法院依职权审判,在事实审判上需要受制于起诉指控的范围,而在法律适用和罪名确定上法院可以自主行动.我国在该问题上虽已有法律规定,但太笼统,简单,面对一些实际问题该法律规定似嫌无能为力.法院应该享有变更指控罪名权,只是要在法院行使该权力时给予必要的规范.法院对指控事实的认定和检察院并无二致,只是在罪名认定上有分歧时可以直接在判决书中将指控罪名加以变更,该变更必须未对被告人辩护权造成实质影响且对其有利;如果指控罪名不当,法院如欲变更会恶化被告人的处境,不宜直接变更,须与检察机关协商后按照一定的程序加以变更.     

The Impact of the Rape/Sexual Assault Statutory Aggravating Factor on Death Sentencing Decision Making in Capital Murder Trials in North Carolina (1977–2009): A Propensity Score Matching Approach

It was not too many decades ago that rape was a crime for which the death penalty was a permissible punishment in the United States, particularly in death penalty states in the South. Relatedly, historical and contemporary death penalty research almost always focuses on the role of the race of the defendant and, more recently, the race of the victim and defendant–victim racial dyads as being relevant factors in death penalty decision making. As such, the current study employs data from official court records for the population of capital trials (n = 954) in the state of North Carolina (1977–2009) to evaluate the effect of the rape/sexual assault statutory aggravating factor on jurors’ decision to recommend the death penalty. Results suggest that cases in which rape is an aggravating factor had a significantly greater odds of receiving a death penalty recommendation, and these results are robust after also considering the independent effects of defendant–victim racial dyads, even following the application of propensity score matching to equate cases on a host of defendant and victim characteristics, legal and extralegal confounders, and case characteristics. Study limitations and implications are discussed.     

"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 Requirement of an 'Express Agreement' for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brdanin

The mode of liability known as joint criminal enterprise (JCE)has emerged in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as a means of assigning criminalliability to individuals for activities carried out by a collective.As a result, the doctrine must be carefully defined so as notto allow it to extend a defendant's liability beyond the appropriatelimits of individual criminal responsibility. In this regard,a recent ICTY Trial Chamber decision in Branin held that, wherea defendant is not alleged to have participated in the physicalperpetration of the crimes charged but to have contributed insome other way to the commission of the crimes by a group, theprosecution must demonstrate that the defendant entered intoan express agreement with the physical perpetrators to committhe crimes charged. The author argues that this ‘expressagreement requirement’ is both conceptually unsound andpractically unhelpful. Conceptually, it would be inconsistentwith core principles of JCE liability to require an expressagreement between a defendant and the physical perpetratorsof crimes, at least in circumstances in which it is allegedthat there existed a structure of two or more overlapping JCEs.Moreover, because this structure allows the accused and thephysical perpetrators to be operating in two separate JCEs,they need not even share a common criminal purpose. On a practicallevel, arguably in a ‘system-criminality’ contextsuch as the one that developed in the former Yugoslavia duringthe time period in question, the organizers of criminal activityare unlikely to enter into express criminal agreements withthose who physically carry out crimes, because existing organizedhierarchies provide much more efficient mechanisms by whichleaders are able to ensure the realization of their criminalplans.     

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.     

刑事诉讼法实施中的若干问题研究

辩护律师向犯罪嫌疑人、被告人核实证据时,除了可以将有罪的实物证据告诉犯罪嫌疑人、被告人之外,其他的证据都不能告诉;"两个基本"应当坚持,但要防止误读和滥用;只有使犯罪嫌疑人、被告人在肉体上或精神上遭受剧烈疼痛或者痛苦的程度与刑讯逼供相当,迫使其违背意愿供述时,获取的供述才应予以排除;在规定的办案场所以外讯问和未依法对讯问进行全程录音录像的行为属于违法,但所取得的供述依法不在排除之列;对指定居所监视居住期间没有违反规定的犯罪嫌疑人,只要其符合逮捕条件,可以转捕;羁押必要性审查的范围包括一切影响羁押条件成立的情况;纪委在查办案件中收集的证据,可以参照刑诉法关于行政机关在行政执法和查办案件过程中收集的证据的规定办理。     

Intention in Criminal Law: The Challenge from Non‐Observational Knowledge

Intention is at the heart of criminal law. If it is not the mens rea requirement found most often in offences, it is still the standard against which other grades of fault tend relatively to be judged. It has generated much controversy, as the crucial question, “Did the defendant intend X?” is resistant to clear answers. This paper argues that intention‐questions are difficult because intention is not the thing law takes it to be: Importantly, contrary to law's assumptions, it is neither a state of mind nor is it connected in an exclusive manner to the reasons for which we act.