Archive for the ‘defamation’ Category
October 4, 2012
Sarah Ludington (Campbell University – The Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law; Duke University School of Law; North Carolina Central University (NCCU) has published “Aiming at the Wrong Target: The ‘Audience Targeting’ Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases”, 73 Ohio State L.J. 541 (2012). The abstract reads:
In Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit crafted a jurisdictional test for Internet defamation that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant specifically targeted an audience in the forum state for the state to exercise jurisdiction. This test relies on the presumption that the Internet — which is accessible everywhere — is targeted nowhere; it strongly protects foreign libel defendants who have published on the Internet from being sued outside of their home states. Other courts, including the North Carolina Court of Appeals, have since adopted or applied the test. The jurisdictional safe harbor (ironically) provided by the very ubiquity of the Internet is no doubt welcomed by media defendants and frequent Internet publishers (e.g., bloggers) whose use of the Internet exposes them to potentially nationwide jurisdiction for defamation. But it may go too far in protecting libel defendants from facing the consequences of their false and injurious statements. For every libel defendant insulated from jurisdiction in a remote location, there is also a libel plaintiff who has potentially been denied an effective remedy in a convenient location. This article argues that the jurisdictional test created in Young is flawed and particularly should not be applied to libel defendants. It concludes with a simple suggestion: that the appropriate test for personal jurisdiction over libel defendants in cases of Internet defamation is the standard minimum contacts analysis.
The article is available for download via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Defamation, Law, North Carolina Court of Appeals, Personal jurisdiction, United States
Posted in blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, personal jurisdiction | Leave a Comment »
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 »
April 23, 2012
This is the second of a two-part series of posts on the recent Canadian conflict of laws trilogy in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17 (“Van Breda”); Éditions Écosociété Inc. v. Banro Corp., 2012 SCC 18 (“Banro”) and Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19. (“Black”).
In Part II, I discuss the implications of the Banro and Black decisions from the perspective of internet defamation, choice of law and forum shopping/libel tourism. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted in assumed jurisdiction, Bangoura v. Washington Post, Banro Corporation v. Les Éditions Écosociété Inc., Black v. Breeden, Charron Estate, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, forum non conveniens, Forum Shopping, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. | 3 Comments »
April 2, 2012
Jon Garon (NKU Chase College of Law) has posted “Tidying Up the Internet: Take Down of Unauthorized Content under Copyright, Trademark and Defamation Law”. Here is the abstract:
As business clients make available an ever-increasing array of online content and services, the specter of liability for inappropriate online content looms large. Still, U.S. federal law protects businesses that adopt appropriate take-down regimes for copyright infringement, defamatory content, and even improper use of competitor’s trademarks. As business clients make available an ever-increasing array of online content and services, the specter of liability for inappropriate online content looms large. Still, federal law protects businesses that adopt appropriate take-down regimes for copyright infringement, defamatory content, and even improper use of competitor’s trademarks. While the percentage of complaints suggests that the notice-and-take-down system is a minor aspect of the Internet media ecology, the existence of the system remains a source of tremendous anger for many. Moreover significant litigation in the past year has renewed the focus on these legal tools to tidy the Internet to cleanse it of unwanted or unauthorized content. This article will focus on the recent activity in the courts and congress regarding the various attempts to deal with unauthorized, unwanted and controversial content available on the Internet.
Download the article from SSRN here.
(h/t Inforrm’s Blog)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Copyright, Copyright infringement, Defamation, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Facebook, Google, Intellectual property, Law
Posted in copyright, defamation, Facebook, intellectual property, internet, internet defamation, internet law, Internet Service Providers, privacy | Leave a Comment »
February 29, 2012
Dr. Eric Descheemaeker(University of Edinburgh – School of Law) has published “Protecting Reputation: Defamation and Negligence” Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper No. 2012/8. The abstract reads:
The present article concerns itself with the relationship between defamation and negligence in the protection of the interest in reputation. The bijection between defamation and reputation is typically thought of as perfect: defamation only protects reputation, while reputation is only protected by defamation. This article shows, however, that neither limb of the proposition is true; furthermore, there is no principled ground why they should be. In particular, there is no reason why the tort of negligence could not prima facie extend the scope of its protection to reputation. It might seem that the fact that negligence, as a tort, requires by construction culpa, whereas defamation appears to rely on either more or less than that as a standard of liability, would prove an insuperable stumbling-block in the way of this suggestion. The hurdle, however, is not nearly as formidable as it might appear at first, because, as this article documents, negligence has for more than a century been acting as a magnet on the law of defamation, surreptitiously bringing its standard of liability increasingly close to negligence-culpa.
Download a copy of the article via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted in defamation, negligence, reputation, tort, torts | 1 Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
