Mapping Defamation Defences

The general neglect of tort defences is most significant in defamation actions. This paper attempts to reduce to a few guiding principles the numerous, and apparently unrelated, doctrines recognised as defences by the law of defamation. Defining the cause of action as an injury to the claimant's reputation, it argues that they fall into three classes: (i) defences which exclude unlawfulness because the injury was inflicted in pursuance of a right or liberty of the defendant; (ii) defences which exclude blameworthiness because the defendant was not at fault for causing the injury; (iii) defences which relieve the defendant of liability despite the injury being both non iure and negligent: this group, not being underpinned by recognised principles, deserves particular scrutiny. The rule of repetition should be qualified by recognition of a defence of ‘warranted republication’; the remainder should be abolished, being an anachronistic hangover from the old requirement of malice.     

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.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Disclosure,Exposure and the ʻRight to be Forgottenʼ after Google Spain: Interrogating Google Search's webmaster,end user and Lumen notification practices

This article argues that Google's essentially blanket and unsafeguarded dissemination to webmasters of URLs delisted under the Google Spain judgment disclosures claimants’ personal data, cannot be justified either on the purported basis of their consent or a legal requirement but instead seriously infringes European data protection standards. Such disclosure would only be compatible with the initially contextually sensitive context of collection where it was (i) reasonably necessary and explicitly limited to the purposes of checking the legality of the initial decision and/or bona fide research and (ii) prevented unauthorised repurposing or other misuse through robust safeguards. Strict necessity thresholds would need to apply where disclosure involved special categories of data or was subject to reasoned objection by a data subject and international transfers would require further controls, ideally as provided by the European Commission's standard contractual clauses. Disclosing identifiable data on removals to end users would directly and fundamentally undermine a data subject's rights and, therefore, ipso facto violate purpose limitation and legality, irrespective of whether rights are claimed in data protection, defamation or civil privacy. The public's legitimate interests in receiving information on personal data removals are best secured through safeguarded scientific research, which search engines should facilitate.     

抵押物转让中的利益衡量与制度设计

抵押人在抵押期间不丧失对抵押物的处分权,可以自由转让抵押物。但抵押物的转让需要顾及到抵押权人利益的保障,传统立法通过赋予抵押权人追及效力来实现于此。但这可能会损害受让人的利益,导致利益和风险分配的不平衡。抵押物转让制度的设计应当充分权衡抵押人、抵押权人以及受让人三者的利益冲突,并结合物尽其用这一物权法基本价值目标,做出妥善安排。由于抵押权是价值权,以价金物上代位为主导、追及效力为补充的抵押物转让制度是一个很好的尝试。     

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.     

利他保险合同下任意解除权的利益失衡与解决路径

在利他保险合同下,我国保险法赋予投保人较强"任意性"的合同解除权,此造成被保险人或受益人保险金请求权的落空,有违"利他"之初衷.《保险法司法解释三》虽以被保险人或受益人的"赎买权"维系利他保险合同的存续,但却难以切实实施.借以行政法比例原则的适合性、必要性以及比例性三个子原则对投保人任意解除权制度予以审查,投保人任意解...     

Toward Normalization of Defamation Law: The U.K. Defamation Act of 2013 and the U.S. SPEECH Act of 2010 as Responses to the Issue of Libel Tourism

In the wake of several high-profile libel actions brought by U.S. celebrities and foreign businessmen in London because of more favorable defamation laws there, London was dubbed the “libel tourism capital of the world.” The U.S. response in 2010 was the passage of the SPEECH Act, preventing courts from enforcing libel judgments from foreign jurisdictions not providing the same level of protection as the United States. Similarly, in 2013 the United Kingdom responded to international and national criticism by passing the Defamation Act to address the loophole in its system that caused the abuse. Both acts have been criticized, the first for its aggressiveness, and the second for its conservative nature. This article examines the development of the law of defamation in the two jurisdictions and analyzes the content of both statutes, along with their criticisms, proposing international cooperation to address the issue of libel tourism.     

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.     

遗失物制度研究

我国现行立法基于对拾金不昧的误解 ,未规定拾得人的报酬请求权和附条件取得遗失物所有权的权利 ,另外规定无人认领的遗失物归国家所有 ,这并不符合现行道德水平以及经济人的基本假设。而设定该两项权利 ,才能实现当事人之间的利益平衡     

内幕交易侵权责任的因果关系

证券内幕交易侵权责任因果关系的研究,需要借助因果关系理论的发展并重新审视内幕交易的行为本质。投资者因内幕交易而致权益被侵害是完全被动的,"比较优势论"有助于实现对内幕交易行为及其侵权责任的整体认知。内幕交易侵害其交易对手——"善意同时反向交易者"之"以信息对称为核心的公平交易法益",而非投资者的"知情法益"。内幕交易行为提升了投资者亏损发生的客观可能性,二者之间具有事实上的因果关联。依托以原因力、有责性、公平性等若干要素为中心的理论与价值判断体系,并贯彻侵权法之填补及预防损害的补偿性功能,经论证可知内幕交易侵权行为引致的损失限定为对手"交易损失的一半",但应以相当于内幕交易人非法获利(包括所获收益或避免的损失)的投资者损失额为限。     

Media libel litigation

The libel litigation system does not efficiently or effectively resolve media libel disputes. Protracted and expensive litigation neither restores plaintiffs' reputations nor protects media defendants from intrusive discovery and potentially large damage awards. This article demonstrates how research on the characteristics of the libel litigation process and the interests and concerns of the disputants was synthesized with research on dispute resolution processes to develop an alternative process for resolving libel disputes outside the courts. The article discusses the potential feasibility of the voluntary, nonlitigation alternative program, informed by research on dispute processing and libel litigation. An evaluation of the program is being conducted to examine attorneys' and parties' reactions to the program and to assess the extent to which the program provides effective solutions to the problems of the libel litigation system.     

The Evolutionary Game‐Theoretic Foundations of Law

Interdisciplinary work in the law often starts and stops with the social sciences. To produce a complete understanding of how law, evolutionary game‐theoretic insights must, however, supplement these more standard social scientific methods. To illustrate, this article critically examines The Force of Law by Frederick Schauer and The Expressive Powers of Law by Richard McAdams. Combining the methods of analytic jurisprudence and social psychology, Schauer clarifies the need for a philosophically respectable and empirically well‐grounded account of the ubiquity of legal sanctions. Drawing primarily on economic and social psychological paradigms, McAdams highlights law's potential to alter human behavior through expressions that coordinate. Still, these contributions generate further puzzles about how law works, which can be addressed using evolutionary game‐theoretic resources. Drawing on these resources, this article argues that legal sanctions are ubiquitous to law not only because they can motivate legal compliance, as Schauer suggests, but also because they provide the general evolutionary stability conditions for intrinsic legal motivation. In reaction to McAdams, this article argues that law's expressive powers can function to coordinate human behavior only because humans are naturally and culturally evolved to share a prior background agreement in forms of life. Evolutionary game‐theoretic resources can thus be used to develop a unified framework from within which to understand some of the complex interrelationships between legal sanctions, intrinsic legal motivation, and law's coordinating power. Going forward, interdisciplinary studies of how law works should include greater syntheses of contemporary insights from evolutionary game theory.     

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.     

Workplace Monitoring and the Right to Private Life at Work

In Barbulescu v Romania, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the application of the Article 8 right to private life in the workplace, and the extent of the state's positive obligations to protect the right against workplace monitoring. The decision establishes that there is an irreducible core to the right to private life at work that does not depend on an employee's reasonable expectations of privacy, and sets out clear principles for striking a fair balance between Article 8 and the employer's interests in the context of workplace monitoring. This article considers the nature of states’ positive obligation to protect human rights at work, the scope of the right to private life, and the impact of the decision on domestic law of unfair dismissal.     

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.     

The right to be forgotten: The Israeli version

The right to be forgotten and erase, originally introduced in the well-known case of Google Spain, has caused considerable legal debates on both theoretical and procedural issues. The Israeli Supreme Court has also just recently considered the issue when it was asked to enforce the right to be forgotten of an Israeli advocate, Jonathan Miller, and delist harmful information which appeared in a Google search, and was in truth related to a different adv. Jonathan Miller. The plaintiff relied on the Israeli Prohibition of Defamation Law. Liability was denied on the basis that the information was indeed true, and thus- justified. We suggest in this article that the court should have imposed liability in negligence, an open ended general tort that mainly applies when particular torts fail to supply a reasonable and just solution in new factual situations due to change in social, economic and technological circumstances.