Lessons learned: A lawsuit's impact on journalistic behavior

Forty‐two journalists who had been sued for invasion of privacy were asked to describe the impact of the lawsuits on their professional lives. Findings indicate that most of the journalists felt changed by the experience—despite nearly all of them prevailing in formal legal proceedings. The changes they described were categorized as “defensive” (adjusting routines to minimize the likelihood of a similar suit) far more often than “instructive” (changing fundamental journalistic practice), and there was little evidence of a chilling effect from the suits, but the journalists clearly felt some degree of sting from the litigation. Just as the Iowa libel study discovered ten years earlier from the plaintiffs' perspective, this study has found from the defendants' perspective that litigation against the media—court outcomes notwithstanding—is by no means futile.     

The Process is the Punishment: Criminal Libel and Political Speech in Canada

The number of U.S. states with criminal libel laws has been steadily declining since the 1960s, and the offense has been struck down in the United Kingdom and several former British colonies. In Canada, however, criminal libel not only continues to exist, but appears to be enjoying a resurgence, albeit one that has flown beneath the radar of Canadian lawyers, judges, and journalists, who frequently assert that criminal libel prosecutions are rare. The research reported in this article found more than 400 prosecutions since the beginning of the twenty-first century. While many of these cases were brought against people who disseminated sexual slurs against former romantic partners, in a substantial number of cases criminal libel law was used to punish citizens’ political speech, particularly speech critical of police or other justice system officials, a use wholly inconsistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.     

"Lies,Lies, Lies": The Origins of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

New York Times v. Sullivan stands as a monument to the proposition that robust and open political discourse is the best guarantee of democratic self-governance. Some scholars have connected the case to the civil rights movement, of which it was surely a part. Others have noted the negative impact Sullivan had on the civility of public discourse. This essay approaches the case from the perspective of white moderates in Montgomery who believed that the law of libel should protect the so-called "best men" by upholding habits and manners of civility. The Sullivan case is notable, then, for the sectionally bound social assumptions of the white moderates that animated the litigation in the first place and whose exuberance in doing so ultimately undermined the values they sought to protect.     

Libel Lawyers as Risk Counselors: Pre-publication and Pre-broadcast Review and the Social Construction of News1

American libel law presents profound dilemmas about how to provide compensation to individuals for injury to their reputation without destroying First Amendment values of free expression and unfettered public debate. This paper looks at the substantial legal costs incurred by publishers and broadcasters in defending themselves against charges of libel, the response of the courts to limit press self-censorship occasioned by the risks of libel litigation, and the perverse effect they both have on the social construction of the news. These tensions are captured in the role of the media lawyer who reviews news stories prior to publication or broadcast and advises editors about libel risks. Data are presented from interviews of 53 in-house and outside counsel who regularly review stories for newspapers, television stations and networks, magazines, and other news organizations. A paradox emerges: media lawyers, in pursuit of constitutional protections of free speech, have come to enforce responsible journalism, while subtly chilling and shaping the ways the news is told.     

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。     

Retract,Expand: Libel Law,the Professionalization of Journalism,and the Limits of Press Freedom at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

At the turn of the twentieth century, many judges and juries considered libel law to be a robust check against a reckless and sensational press. So how did the newspaper industry convince seventeen state legislatures between 1885 and 1915 to pass laws easing liability for accidental libel? This article analyzes a debate surrounding libel law reform to tell the story of how retraction statutes were conceived in press association meetings, enacted in spite of lawyers' reservations, and challenged in state supreme courts during a pivotal era in the professionalization of journalism. It offers a better understanding of the power of the institutional press to influence Americans' conception of the purpose of press freedom and the role of journalism in democratic society, and a clearer picture of the beginnings of a more press friendly era in libel law, from the wire service defense to the actual malice standard.     

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage from an internal jugular abscess in an intravenous drug addict

The usual death of a long-time heroin user is described. The significance of this case is that death occurred suddenly and unexpectedly during incarceration. In the United States, such deaths are frequently followed by lawsuits against the prison authorities. Drug abuse can cause death in many varied ways.     

浅析反垄断公益诉讼制度

传统诉讼法理论在“无利益即无诉权”的原则下,一般认为作为诉权要件的“诉的利益”是法院进行裁判的前提。因此,对于社会经济安全等社会公益,公民被认为不具有直接利害关系,其原告资格不被承认。然而,随着新型纠纷(垄断公害诉讼、环境纠纷、消费者公益诉讼等)的出现,公民便无法通过司法手段来维护这一公益。反垄断公益诉讼制度的出现,既是诉讼法对其自身只顾及保护私人利益的狭隘性突破,也是对传统诉讼法律制度的超越。     

The Status of Criminal Libel in Grenada After Worme v. Commissioner of Police

In January 2004, the Privy Council, the final court of appeal for all British Caribbean states, held that a criminal libel statute providing for the two-year imprisonment of publishers libeling government officials was constitutional and consistent with a democratic society. Over the years, the constitutionality of criminal libel laws in the United States has been attacked with only marginally greater success than the Grenadian law. This article provides a background to the development of criminal libel laws in the two regions; traces the 2004 decision, the threats and actions brought against the media by the Grenadian government in its aftermath; and discusses the likely effect that it could have on the law of libel in the British Caribbean.     

Rethinking Criminal Libel: An Empirical Study

The prevailing view of criminal libel among communication law scholars in the United States is that there are very few prosecutions, that most of the prosecutions are about politics or public issues, and that none of the prosecutions are necessary because victims of defamation can sue for civil libel. The results of an empirical study of all Wisconsin criminal libel cases from 1991 through 2007, however, suggest that criminal libel is prosecuted far more often than realized, that most criminal libel prosecutions have nothing to do with political or public issues, and that the First Amendment is an effective shield on the rare occasions when a criminal libel prosecution is politically motivated. This article concludes that criminal libel can be a legitimate way for the law to deal with expressive deviance that harms the reputations of private figures in cases that have nothing to do with public issues.     

Messy Business: Media Representations of Administrative Sanctions for Corporate Offenders

Enforcement against corporate offenses is increasingly carried out by specialized regulatory agencies. These often use publicity as a regulatory tool, in the expectation that disclosure of sanctions will invoke the threat of reputational damage and broadcasts a moral message about desired behavior. This article investigates how media represent administrative offenses in the Dutch financial market, in terms of punitiveness for offenders and in terms of the message about the wrongfulness and harm of offenses. Media coverage of administrative fines is messy in several senses. First, adverse publicity is unpredictable and disproportionally affects small firms in comparison with large, professional firms. In addition, it is also messy in terms of its contribution to the prevention of corporate misbehavior. Media do not unequivocally disapprove of financial market offenses. Rather than clarifying the demarcation line between right and wrong, media describe financial market behavior as a grey zone where differences of opinion can exist over whether certain behavior constitutes an offense. More than a publicity sanction or moral message, media was found to frame offenses by retail banks and capital market firms in terms of the power struggle between firms and the regulatory authority.     

The Public Participation Act: A Comprehensive Model Approach to End Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation in the USA

Commentators have documented the disturbing use of the courtroom to silence those who speak out on important issues. Too often, parties resort to meritless lawsuits in response to another's free expression or communication with the government. These lawsuits are called SLAPPs, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. In the USA, they have emerged as a significant threat to the rights of expression and petition guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. A majority of the US States have passed 'anti-SLAPP laws', but there is no uniform protection. The model legislation outlined in this paper is intended to guide those who seek uniform, comprehensive protection against SLAPPs.     

Forum Shopping and the Cyber Pamphleteer: Banamex v. Rodriguez

The Internet promised to make everyone a publisher, subject and reader, simultaneously, connecting the lonely pamphleteer to the whole world through cyber- space. That new freedom also brought the liberty to cause harm all over the world, however. When that happens, where can a victim seek redress? The threat that one-person publishing endeavors could be haled into far-flung forums to mount costly defenses against libel threatens to chill the free speech that the Internet was to deliver. Banamex v. Rodriguez pitted two muckraking journalists against a powerful Mexican banker to help begin setting the rules about where cyber pamphleteers can be called to account for what they publish. This article examines the Banamex case and its ramifications for free expression.     

De Clérambault's Syndrome (Erotomania) and claims of psychiatric malpractice

De Clérambault's Syndrome or Erotomania was originally described as a delusional disorder in which a woman believes that an older man of higher social status is passionately in love with her. The patient's relentless pursuit of the delusional love object, often with escalating intrusiveness, may eventually involve threats or overt acts of retaliation, in response to repeated rejection, unrequited love, or alleged betrayal. Cases from the literature are reviewed in which the delusional romantic attachment involves the patient's psychiatrist or another medical specialist. The authors present a case involving a patient suffering from erotomania who develops a delusional fixation on her psychiatrist and, after her advances are repeatedly rejected, sues him for malpractice, alleging she had a sexual relationship with him in the course of treatment. The implications of the litigious paranoid, who uses the legal system to act out delusional concerns and retaliatory fantasies, are discussed. This is the first known case of an erotomanic patient claiming malpractice on the grounds that her psychiatrist had a sexual relationship with her.     

Liability of manufacturers and providers of health related goods and services: confronting the dilemma.

In this Article, Theodore Cooper, M.D., Assistant Secretary for Health at HEW, contends that the crush of lawsuits brought by aggrieved health care consumers against medical professionals and institutions, and drug and medical equipment manufacturers, may be the result, in large part, of a widely held impression--often encouraged by members of the health professions and industries themselves--that medicine has unlimited powers to heal. Dr. Cooper suggests that those involved in providing health care services and products--and members of the legal profession-have a responsibility to inform the public that this expectation is unrealistic and that everyone suffers when the number of such lawsuits and the size of damage awards are excessive.     

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.     

Bankrupting Terrorism: The Role of US Anti-terrorism Litigation in the Prevention of Terrorism and Other Hybrid Threats: A Legal Assessment and Outlook

Global terrorist networks are dependent on receiving financial support from a variety of sources, including individuals, charities and corporations. Also known as terrorist financing, the potential of terrorism finance to resemble a global threat has been recognised and also its closeness to other international crimes such as money laundering and organized crime. As a result, possible responses have to constitute co-ordinated, multi-lateral and multi faceted actions under the umbrella of a wide range of international stakeholders such as the United Nations Security Council and the Financial Action Task Force. Combating terrorism requires a ??holistic?? approach which allows for a mix of possible responses. Besides ??kinetic?? security operations (such as targeted killings) and the adoption of criminal prosecution measures another possible response could be the use of US styled transnational civil litigation by victims of terrorism against both, terrorist groups and their sponsors. Corporations, both profit and non profit, such as banks and other legal entities, as well as individuals, are often complicit in international terrorism in a role of aiders and abettors by providing financial assistance to the perpetrators (cf. UN Al-Qaida Sanctions List: The List established and maintained by the 1267 Committee with respect to individuals, groups, undertakings and other entities associated with Al-Qaida). Such collusion in acts of terrorism gains additional importance against the background of so called ??Hybrid Threats??, NATO??s new concept of identifying and countering new threats arising from multi-level threat scenarios. This article discusses the potential impact of US terrorism lawsuits for the global fight against terrorism.     

Durie v Gardiner: Public Libel Law and Stare Non Decisis

This note examines the controversial case of Durie v Gardiner, a recent decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, which radically altered the nation's public libel jurisprudence. It argues that Durie is incorrect as a matter of public libel law for three reasons. First, both Durie judgments failed to engage in freedom of expression theorising. Second, this undertheorising has caused significant confusion in Durie, including misinterpretation of material facts, breakdown of the ‘theory-doctrine’ interface, and a precipitous and unwarranted dismissal of the Court of Appeal's settled public libel principles. Third, owing to these difficulties, the Durie courts were in no position to import a new ‘public interest’ defence from foreign jurisdictions. Above all, by hastening towards wholesale law reform and ignoring its earlier comparative law deliberations, Durie arguably scuppers public libel law's best hope for advancement.     

Prison mental health services: results of a national survey of standards, resources, administrative structure, and litigation

The formation of adequate mental health systems within prisons has accelerated as a result of successful class action lawsuits. Our recent national survey questioned all state correctional departments about the existence of standards in each system, compliance with such standards, prevalence of class action lawsuits involving the issue of providing adequate mental health services for inmates, issues related to consent decrees, available mental health resources within the correctional system, and the administrative structure of the mental health system. Our purpose was to identify those factors correlated with certified class action lawsuits involving issues related to mental health services. Twenty-one states were involved in such litigation. Only the presence of psychiatric hospitals operated by the department of corrections correlated with the presence of certified class action lawsuits involving mental health services. Prison systems larger than 15,000 inmates were at higher risk for such litigation. Smaller systems having psychiatric hospitals run by the state mental health agency appeared to be at less risk for such litigation.     

A Key Influence on the Doctrine of Actual Malice: Justice William Brennan's Judicial Philosophy at Work in Changing the Law of Seditious Libel

Much of the scholarship on Justice William Brennan's landmark opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has focused on the actual malice doctrine and its implications. In light of the historic change in the law of seditious libel in the United States as a result of the case and the need for further exploration of the human factors behind the case, this article explains how Justice Brennan's instrumentalist judicial philosophy had an important influence on changing the course of legal protection for speech critical of the government. The article concludes that the outcome of the case probably would have differed notably if a justice with a formalist, Holmesian or natural law philosophy had authored the opinion for the Court.