Archive for the ‘libel’ Category
December 19, 2012
Laura E. Little (Temple University – James E. Beasley School of Law) has published “Internet Defamation, Freedom of Expression, and the Lessons of Private International Law for the United States”, European Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 14, 2012. The abstract reads:
This article reviews current developments in U.S. conflict of laws doctrine pertaining to transnational internet defamation cases, including personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments. To resolve personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues in internet defamation cases, U.S. courts have adapted rules from the non-internet context with relative ease. Reported cases tend to concern domestic internet disputes between U.S. entities, with few plaintiffs attracted to U.S. courts for the purpose of litigating cross-border defamation claims. Although the U.S. serves as a magnet jurisdiction for many types of litigation, two liability-defeating laws render the country inhospitable to defamation claims: (1) the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment speech protections and (2) a statute affording immunity to internet “providers or users” for information “provided by another content provider.” Perhaps because of these provisions litigants are largely inspired to go elsewhere. The resulting libel tourism has prompted important U.S. developments pertaining to enforcement and recognition of foreign defamation judgments. Thus, for conflict of laws matters pertaining to internet defamation, it is judgments law that reflects the greatest activity and most profound change.
After reviewing personal jurisdiction and choice of law trends, this article describes legal developments pertaining to internet defamation judgments. The article critiques lawmakers’ adherence to First Amendment exceptionalism in regulating internet defamation judgments and identifies flaws reflected in state libel tourism statutes and the federal libel tourism statute, the SPEECH act of 2010.
Download the article via SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Conflict of Laws, Defamation, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Freedom of speech, International law, Jurisdiction, United States
Posted in choice of forum, choice of law, conflict of laws, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, enforcement, First Amendment, foreign judgments, foreign plaintiffs, international law, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, libel, Libel Chill, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, personal jurisdiction, private international law, public policy, SPEECH Act | Leave a Comment »
December 11, 2012
BCCLA demands watchdog investigate RCMP actions against critic | BC Civil Liberties Association.:
New information in unsealed court documents has the BCCLA demanding an investigation into the RCMP for seizing the computers of a man who says he was helping unhappy RCMP members post their concerns online. On August 18, 2012, Grant Wakefield’s computers and cell phone were seized in a joint RCMP Major Crime and New Westminster Police Department operation.
The RCMP has confirmed that Wakefield was the informant whose information and photographs started high profile code of conduct and criminal investigations into Port Coquitlam RCMP officer Jim Brown’s activities. Simultaneously, Wakefield was also anonymously assisting disgruntled members of the RCMP to run a blog called the “Re-Sergence Alliance” blog, a blog that posted alleged RCMP front line member concerns about RCMP management and policy online.
The BCCLA adds:
“We’re asked to believe the RCMP used the resources of their major crime section, computer forensics team, the Federal Department of Justice, and a search warrant, to investigate what amounts to conspiracy theories posted in the comment section of an erotic blog and a Twitter account with thirteen followers,” said Eby. “Defamatory comments are made every day on the internet, and the RCMP doesn’t send their major crime team to investigate. What makes this case unique is that the man who had his computers taken away by the police was using those computers to help unhappy RCMP members publish their concerns online.”
The BCCLA is demanding the Commission for Public Complaints investigate the entire RCMP operation against Grant Wakefield, and has written to them to file a complaint.
Click here to read the unsealed court documents >>
Click here to read the BCCLA’s letter to the Commission for Public Complaints >>
The decision of P. D. Gulbransen, J. partially unsealing the RCMP search warrant is reported at B.C. Civil Liberties Association v. Regina, 2012 BCPC 406 (CanLII).
Criminalization of defamation is a pernicious form of libel chill and is anathema to a free and democratic society. It is high time for the archaic and illiberal criminal offence of defamatory libel to be relegated to the dustbin of legal history.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:BC Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Jim Brown, New Westminster, Police, RCMP, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Wakefield
Posted in BC Civil Liberties Association, BCCLA, blawging, Blawgosphere, blawgs, blog, Cpl. Jim Brown, criminal law, Criminal Libel, criminal procedure, defamation, Defamation Law, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, Grant Wakefield, libel, Libel Chill, media, RCMP, social media | 1 Comment »
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 »
August 24, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
Jan-Jaap Kuipers has published Towards a European Approach in the Cross-Border Infringement of Personality Rights, 12 German Law Journal 1681-1706 (2011). Here is the Introduction:
A. Introduction
Globalization has led to the emergence of broadcasting services and books aimed at a global audience. Authors of books, journals, and articles have gained readers worldwide. Due to the Internet, the spreading of ideas on a global level has never been easier. The other side of the coin is that authors run a risk of being exposed to civil proceedings in many jurisdictions. What is considered to be proactive journalism, or a provocative academic comment in some jurisdictions is considered to be libel or defamation in others. We speak of “libel tourism” when defamation proceedings are brought in a forum that has only vague connections to the case, but happens to be very plaintiff-friendly.
The freedom of speech and the right to private life are both enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Although the Member States of the European Union are united by common principles, they have struck different balances between the competing fundamental rights. The balancing of those fundamental rights becomes even more sensitive when the publisher or author and the alleged victim are not domiciled within the same jurisdiction. The infringement of the right to private life by foreign media becomes an international horizontal conflict between fundamental rights.
The freedom of speech, and the intrusion on private life that an individual has to tolerate in the name of public debate, are the reflection of a particular view on how a democracy should operate. The determination of the law applicable to a cross-border infringement of personality rights is therefore an extremely sensitive issue. Although the Commission’s proposal for a Rome II Regulation did lay down a specific conflict of laws rule relating to the infringement of personality rights, the issue proved to be too controversial to reach agreement. The determination of the law applicable to non‐contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, was therefore in Art. 1(2g) explicitly excluded from the scope of Rome II. The present paper attempts to analyze to what extent it is necessary to revise the “defamation exclusion” of Rome II. If it would be necessary to include defamation in Rome II, what would be the most appropriate conflict of laws rule?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Defamation, European Convention on Human Rights, European Union, Freedom of speech, Fundamental rights, Human rights, Law, Member state of the European Union
Posted in Academic Freedom, cyberlaw, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, European Convention on Human Rights, European Union, free speech, Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, jurisdiction, libel, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, personality rights, Rome II Regulation, tort, torts | Leave a Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
