Archive for the ‘Defamation Act 2011’ Category
May 24, 2013
The decision of Mr Justice Tugendhat in McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) (24 May 2013) ["McAlpine"] is a stern admonition to Twitter users about the perils of practising comedy without a license.
Seriously, in my view, the UK court’s judgment will have a chilling effect on free speech on Twitter and will likely devolve into an era of social media self-censorship for Twitter users, particularly in the UK. A form of libel chill, or, perhaps “Twitter Chill”.
It also highlights the legal chasm that exists between the American and UK judicial approaches to balancing freedom of expression and protecting reputation. The decision also raises the spectre of a “popularity metric” to determine whether the alleged maker or republisher of the defamatory tweet has gazillions of followers or is just some shlub with 4 followers, three of which are porn bots. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:BBC, Bercow, Lord McAlpine, Michael Tugendhat, Newsnight, Sally Bercow, Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), Twitter
Posted in cyberlaw, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, England and Wales, England and Wales High Court, English law, libel, Libel Chill, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, online, Online Defamation, online reputation, UK, Uncategorized, United Kingdom | 2 Comments »
November 20, 2012
The recent media scandal involving British peer, Lord McAlpine (pictured above) who threatened to sue the BBC, ITV and thousands of Twitter users over false accusations of pedophilia is discussed over at Inforrm’s Blog: (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:BBC, England, ITV, Lord McAlpine, Newsnight, Supreme Court of Canada, Twitter
Posted in acquiescence, Crookes v. Newton, cyberlaw, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, England and Wales, England and Wales High Court, English law, equity, estoppel, estoppel by representation of fact, free speech, libel, Libel Chill, waiver | 6 Comments »
September 28, 2012
Lili Levi (University of Miami – School of Law) has published “The Problem of Trans-National Libel”, American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. LX, No. 2, Spring 2012/ University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2012-25. Here’s the abstract:
Forum shopping in trans-national libel cases “libel tourism” has a chilling effect on journalism) academic scholarship) and scientific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legislatively. In 2070) the United States passed the SPEECH Act) which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from jurisdictions applying law less speech-protective than the First Amendment. In Britain) consultation has closed and the Parliamentary Joint Committee has issued its report on a broad-ranging libel reform bill proposed by the Government in March 2011. This Article questions the extent to which the SPEECH Act and the Draft Defamation Bill will accomplish their stated aims. The SPEECH Act provides little protection for hard-hitting investigative and accountability journalism by professional news organizations with global assets. The proposed British bill has important substantive limits. Moreover) even if Parliament approves reform legislation discouraging libel tourism) such actions may shift to other claimant-friendly jurisdictions. Global harmonization of libel law is neither realistic nor desirable. Instead this Article proposes a two-fold approach. On the legal front, it supports the liberalizations of Britain’s proposed libel reform legislation and calls for foreign courts) when assessing the significance of contacts to the forum in cases affecting the United States) to consider seriously the importance of extensive First Amendment protections for political speech to the American concept of democracy. In addition) the Article calls for voluntary initiatives such as: 1) new approaches to help defend trans-national defamation claims when they are brought; and 2) measures to reduce the number of trans-national libel cases by improving the way in which the press does its job. The defense measures explored include the development of community-funded (rather than media-supported) libel defense funds; the formation of pro bono libel review consortia; and alternative approaches to increasing the availability of libel insurance. The recommended press-improvement measures include expanded access to documents, as well as the enhancement of accountability measures such as best-practices education, journalistic self-criticism, and updated codes of conduct.
A copy of the article is available for download via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Britain, Defamation, Government, Law, Libel tourism, Philippine, United Nations Human Rights Committee, United States
Posted in cyberlaw, cyberlibel, cyberspace, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, First Amendment, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers, libel, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, SPEECH Act, Transnational, Transnational Law, transnational litigation, United Kingdom, United States | Leave a Comment »
November 30, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
Over at Inforrm’s Blog, Gervase de Wilde comments on the recent UK High Court decision of HHJ Parkes QC in Davison v Habeeb ([2011] EWHC 3031 (QB)) dated 25 November 2011 [“Davison”] involving online intermediary liability and jurisdictional issues in UK defamation actions.
In this post, I will briefly address the broader implications of online regulation and intermediary liability. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Google, Internet service provider, Senate, Stop Online Piracy Act
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, cyberlaw, cyberlibel, cyberslapp, cybersmear, cyberspace, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, intermediaries, International, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, Internet Service Providers | 2 Comments »
April 6, 2011
Lili Levi (University of Miami – School of Law) has posted “The Problem of Trans-National Libel”, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-11. Here’s the abstract:
Forum shopping in trans-national libel cases – “libel tourism” – has a chilling effect on journalism, academic scholarship, and scientific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legislatively. In 2010, the U.S. passed the SPEECH Act, which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from jurisdictions applying law less protective than the First Amendment. On March 15, 2011, the British Ministry of Justice proposed a draft Defamation Act 2011 with provisions designed, inter alia, to discourage libel tourism. This Article questions the extent to which the SPEECH Act and the proposed Defamation Act 2011 will accomplish their stated aims. The SPEECH Act provides little protection for hard-hitting investigative and accountability journalism by professional news organizations with global assets. The proposed British bill has important substantive limits and, controversial in Britain, may well not be adopted. Even if Parliament approves it, the site of libel tourism may shift to other claimant-friendly jurisdictions. Global harmonization of libel law is neither realistically feasible nor desirable. Instead, this Article proposes a two-fold approach. On the legal front, it supports the procedural focus of Britain’s proposed bill, but also calls for foreign courts to apply a governmental interest analysis to choice of law in trans-national defamation cases threatening core political speech in the United States. On the policy front, it calls for: 1) measures to improve the way in which the press does its job in order to reduce the number of trans-national libel cases; and 2) new approaches to help defend the claims when they are brought. The recommended press-improvement measures include expanded access to, and efficient use of, documents, journalistic self-criticism, and best-practices education. The defense measures explored include the development of alternative, community-based support for libel defense funds; the formation of pro bono libel review consortia; and the promotion of the availability of libel insurance by means designed to help insurers more accurately assess libel risk.
A copy of the working paper may be downloaded from SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted in cyberlaw, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Act 2011, Defamation Law, England and Wales, First Amendment, forum non conveniens, Forum Shopping, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, international law, international litigation, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, jurisdiction, libel, Libel Chill, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, SPEECH Act | 1 Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
