Defamation & privacy Flashcards
what tension in this area
right to family life/ private life/freedom of exression e.g newspaper, e.g taking pics of kids
limitations on defamation?
not 4 hurt feelings-
-living persons- if alive can defame them and they can put claim against you, if die cant have def we can say what we want e.g walt disney . hw if defame brand still have right of action, need to make disitinction between businesses and brands
what about companies and defamation?
generally companies can sue
e.g steele v mcdonalds corp- had more evidence on 1 side than other, unequal rep on each sides, very much balancing act
jameel quote for companies?
“The good name of a company, as that of an individual, is a thing of value. A damaging libel may lower its standing in the eyes of the public and even its own staff and make people less ready to deal with it, less willing and less proud to work for it… I find nothing repugnant in the notion that this is a value which the law should protect.”
[Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe [2007], [26] (Lord Bingham)]
what about nowadays?
alot of def on social media - modern defamation principle more and more online
cases for nowadays?
oyster v reed - freedom of speech can have forums buttttttt these took it too far = liable and didnt take things down off message boards cant vent on a forum but went past it
what about governments?
people should be able to challenge gov= freedom of speech- but then politicians should be able to hit back, however might not sue in def if politicioan but could in own right just not in role of e.g political party
what about Phil Davidson…?
Phil Davidson…- went viral- defamation
what are the 2 select comittees for defamation?
Faulks Report (1975) [Cm 5909] Calcutt Report (1990) [Cm 2135] essentially both said nice things but select com not binding, parl would consider report but sometimes ignore it, distinction btw def and salnder -used few times but ignored too
what about the faulks report?
companies rep being protected impacts on profits etc -companies more advisoru- read 2 points for extra info
another commitee?
lempson report-entire report, def/tort , kris not fan cos does ignore social media
no. od def acts?
not all valid
modern 2013 we should be aware of -policy -2013 tidy up law deal with no.of cosnent
compensation act- kinda agree sim thing with defamation act
fear of
what did 2013 act introduce?
NOTE the Defamation Act 2013, s.9(2) was introduced specifically to combat the perceived threat of “libel tourism”
“A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement.”
BUT
Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz?
said not bound by our def act - - as she said in america land of free not bound by english law - us agreed but not much they could do about it, so passed law , shield to certain extenet for eamerican hournalists, from other juris bc freedom of speeech, rights for cross border agreements- not many talk about this.
case for defamation?
Sutcliffe v. Private Eye [1989]- private life gets 60,000 end up 6,000- shift for no juries
defamation and deterence?
2 arg against it - lance armstrong- ask for money back loss & dam yes , jimmy saville- threatened to sue got no ev have 2 shutup, more people shutup ahrder to bring case, agree very ,uch about power and restraint and freedom of speech
def act 2013 and juries?
lance was 1st done without juries , now we have trial without juries unless ct order says otherwise as juries unrelaiable
judges?
major advantage kind of like fastrack but disadvanatges due to represetaion and might not know much about pop culture
what does this bring us into?
2 school of thoughts- libel and slander 1 is actual one is not
what is libel ?
permanent, written more damaging bc written (lec outline), if said live possibly slaner , and also depends on circum how many ppl etc
what is slander?
more temporary -less damaging as less people see
slander is very generally spoken
cases for libel or slander?
Monson v. Tussauds [1894]- slander
Youssoupoff v. MGM Pictures Ltd [1934]- even though spoken libel bc permant record
Forrester v. Tyrell [1894]-libel
special rules for slander?
-Criminal Offence?-impute c.o alleged
Disease?- no longer cat need to prove special damag assoc with that diseas
DA’13, s.14: Special Damage-
Unchastity of a woman?-immediatiely actionable , only women, now repealed, women lesbo, but is it that deep in 2017
DA’13 s.14: Repealed
Incompetence?- actionable per se
early day cases?
Rindos v. Hardwick
Godfrey v. Demon Internet
Metropolitan International Schools Ltd v. Designtechnica Corp [2009]
