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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

From gatekeepers to publishers: Liability of internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content

This article aims to analyse the liability of Internet intermediaries in India for hosting defamatory content. In the absence of any statutory law relating to online defamation, the courts in India have had to rely upon comparable developments in the United Kingdom to define the contours of liability of the intermediaries for facilitating the publication of defamatory content on the Internet. However, affixing liability on intermediaries in the absence of similar statutory immunities provided to them under the UK law may prove prejudicial to the intermediaries. Therefore, this article argues that India should enact a comprehensive law to statutorily limit the grounds on which liability may be imposed on Internet intermediaries for hosting online defamatory content. This article further argues that India should adopt and codify the ‘notice and notice plus’ approach to intermediary liability as it ensures that intermediaries are not held liable as publishers for hosting the defamatory content, but in the meantime are also encouraged to take active steps to ensure effective justice to the victims of online defamation.     

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.     

Homosexuality as Defamation: A Proposal for the Use of the “Right-Thinking Minds” Approach in the Development of Modern Jurisprudence

False imputations of homosexuality have long been considered by courts to be defamatory per se, but many jurisdictions are beginning to revisit the issues surrounding homosexuality and defamation in the wake of a national debate over gay rights. This article examines whether courts should abandon false imputations of homosexuality as per se defamation and concludes that, at a minimum such statements should no longer be defamatory per se and further provides courts with a framework to go a step further and hold that such statements hold no defamatory meaning.     

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.     

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。     

Internet court's challenges and future in China

China established the world's first Internet court in Hangzhou in August 2017. Subsequently in 2018 Internet courts in Beijing and Guangzhou were established respectively. With the official establishment of these three Internet courts, China's electronic litigation advanced to a new stage.. Internet courts offer many advantages, and this innovative adjudication model has earned widespread approval for both its speedy acceptance of cases and speedy hearing of cases. This article analyzes the questions and challenges faced by Internet courts, proposes solutions such as compliance with three basic legal ethical principles, re-establishing the sense of presence and ritual of litigation, establishment of risk mitigation mechanisms between the legal system and technological systems to develop the ability for the construction of Internet courts in China.     

Liberalizing British Defamation Law: A Case of Importing the First Amendment?

Regardless of whether American law tends to be too outlying to be relevant to the rest of the world, the U.S. free speech jurisprudence is more impactful than ever. Indeed, the United States remains a real-life laboratory for other countries in resolving clashes between press freedom and reputation. Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe and other recent English media libel cases are a good illustration. This article examines the liberalization of U.K. defamation law in connection with the U.S. actual malice rule while noting English courts' significant adoption of neutral reportage, which American courts consider to be less viable as a libel defense. The principle of functionality informs the article's analytical framework.     

Personal jurisdiction: Where cyberspace meets the real world – Part 1

Whereas traditional jurisdictional issues are geographically based, today electronic communication readily crosses borders without having any specific links to the territory where the technology is located and users engage in global activities without the need for physical presence within the forum state. As the Internet becomes part of daily life rather than a place deserving an occasional visit, the courts of different countries strive to adapt existing legal systems to ever nebulous out-of-state cyber defendants. Though online activity raises numerous legal issues, not least jurisdiction, this article is concerned only with personal jurisdiction.     

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．     

The Impact of Media on Public Trust in Legal Authorities in China and Taiwan

Literature on public perceptions of legal authorities in Chinese societies has been accumulating, yet a critical line of inquiry is missing, regarding the effects of the media. Relying on two nationwide samples, this study examines: (1) to what extent do Chinese and Taiwanese citizens trust their police and courts; and (2) how does media consumption influence Chinese and Taiwanese trust in police and courts, after controlling for a range of individual demographic, experiential, attitudinal, and locality variables? Results show higher levels of trust among Chinese than Taiwanese. Chinese trust their courts more than the police, but Taiwanese trust their police more than courts. Media exposure variables have limited effects on public trust in legal authorities. While frequency of consumption of television, newspaper, and the Internet does not influence Chinese or Taiwanese trust, exposure to foreign news lowers Chinese trust in legal authorities. Trust in media is closely connected to trust in legal authorities.     

Plaintiff Identification in the “Persona Torts”: What Defamation Law Can Offer the Right of Publicity and Related Claims

Courts applying the persona torts – right of publicity, appropriation and false endorsement claims under the Lanham Act – often lack a precise methodology for determining whether a plaintiff has been depicted or identified. A number of courts have accepted the ambiguous notion that a defendant need only appropriate a plaintiff’s “identity.” Moreover, these courts apply an essentially impressionistic approach to whether that appropriation has occurred. This article, drawing from defamation doctrine, synthesizes a more nuanced and rigorous approach to the depiction question – an approach that also better safeguards important First Amendment values.     

"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 liability of website owners for defamation in Israel: A challenge yet to be solved?

From the end of the twentieth century to the present we have witnessed the effects of technology on the way we consume and distribute information. The print media, which in many ways was the natural product of the printing revolution, has given way to the electronic media with websites providing the new “town squares” in which the public discourse is held on political, economic and social issues among others. The Israeli legal system, like the legal systems in other countries, faces a variety of challenges and complex ethical and legal issues when required to regulate (often retrospectively) the manner and processes through which the discourse will be conducted in the virtual “town hall”. In essence, this article focuses on one of the many questions occupying the Israeli legal system and that is whether website owners should be liable in defamation for speech published by third parties on the Internet (through blogs, tweets on Twitter, posts on Facebook,¹ uploaded video clips on YouTube and the like) when no connection exists between the third party and the site owner apart from the fact that the third party has used the website as a platform to publish the offensive speech. The issue of the liability of the website owner has ramifications for the injured party's capacity to institute an action for defamation against the website owner, as often only the latter will be in a position to compensate the injured party (financially) for the offensive speech. The Israeli legal system, which in many ways furnishes a unique and interesting framework for examining the question posed above, as we explain in the body of the article, presents a fascinating example of how the Israeli legislature and the courts have dealt and continue to deal with claims filed against website owners for damage to reputation as a result of speech published by third parties. The article offers a comprehensive review of the status of the right to freedom of speech, anonymity and the right to reputation in Israel, the considerations for and against the imposition of liability on website owners and the latest case law on these questions.     

坚持网络舆论正确导向的路径分析

导向是舆论的根本性问题。坚持网络舆论的正确导向,就是要始终坚持舆论的社会主义方向,弘扬主旋律,传播正能量。实践中仍有一些因素影响着网络舆论的正确导向,因此应进一步加深对网络舆论正确导向的认识,依法加强网络空间治理,构建以中央主要媒体为主导的主流舆论格局,大力提高网民的媒介素养。     

论互联网时代诽谤罪的公诉范围

我国刑法对诽谤罪采取自诉为主、公诉为补充的双轨制模式。由于刑法但书“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”的公诉依据具有模糊性,同时司法解释本身缺乏解释力和可操作性,存在同义解释、近义解释等问题,加剧了公诉诽谤罪和其他罪名之间的冲突和竞合,特别是当被害人为地方领导干部时,诽谤罪的公诉权在实务中存在被滥用风险,部分限制公诉权的要件在实务中被淡化甚至忽略。从相对狭义的角度看,“严重危害社会秩序和国家利益”只有在行为人对侵犯个体法益具备主观故意,但对侵犯社会法益或国家法益不具备主观故意(或无法证明其具备故意)的情形下,才有其独特的法律适用价值并不与刑法其他罪名相冲突。为妥善处理和平衡诽谤犯罪中惩治犯罪和保障人权的关系,适应互联网时代的内外部变化,建议通过修改我国刑法,将诽谤罪区分为情节不严重、情节严重、情节特别严重的三种形态,为充分保障宪法权利,情节不严重的不作为犯罪处罚;为充分保障自诉权,情节严重的为绝对告诉乃论;为依法惩治犯罪,对符合特定形式要件和实质要件,情节特别严重的诽谤犯罪可以依法公诉,以维护网络信息秩序。     

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.