The Right to Speak Ill

by Weaver, Russell L.; Kenyon, Andrew T.; Partlett, David F.; Walker, Clive P.

• ISBN13: 9780890894897
• ISBN10: 0890894892
• Format: Hardcover
• Copyright: 2006-01-01
• Publisher: Carolina Academic Press

Summary

Based on empirical research involving interviews with defamation lawyers, as well as journalists, editors, and producers, this book provides a comparative examination of defamation liability standards and their impact on the media's ability to report on matters of public examination. The interviews span a twelve-year time frame during which there were significant developments in the affected countries (Australia, the United States and Great Britain) including extensions of qualified privilege in the Reynolds (Great Britain) and Lange (Australia) decisions.

Author Biography

Russell L. Weaver is a professor and Distinguished University Scholar at the University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law. Andrew T. Kenyon is the Director of the Centre for Media and Communications Law and a member of the University of Melbourne Faculty of Law. David F. Partlett is the Dean and a professor of law at Washington and Lee University School of Law. Clive P. Walker is the Head of School and professor of Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Leeds School of Law.

Table of Contents

Preface	xiii
Chapter 1 Introduction	3	(14)
Chapter 2 The Common Law Tradition	17	(18)
A. Libel, Slander and Procedure	18	(3)
B. The Plaintiff's Case	21	(4)
C. The Defendant's Case	25	(10)
1. Justification	25	(3)
2. Fair Comment	28	(3)
3. Privileges	31	(4)
Chapter 3 U.S. Defamation Law and the New York Times Decision	35	(42)
A. From the Framing to Garrison and New York Times: Early U.S. Libel Decisions	35	(4)
1. Incorporation	36	(1)
2. Defamation as Unprotected Speech	36	(3)
B. The Constitutionalization of Defamation: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan	39	(10)
1. The Facts	39	(4)
2. The Decision	43	(6)
C. Post-Sullivan Refinements	49	(17)
1. Further Definition of the "Public Official" Concept	50	(1)
2. The "Public Figure" Concept	51	(2)
3. "Private Individuals"	53	(8)
4. Distinguishing "Public Figures" from Private Individuals	61	(5)
D. Rejection of the "Public Interest" Standard	66	(2)
E. Application of the "Actual Malice" Standard	68	(6)
F. Fact v. Opinion	74	(1)
G. Conclusion	75	(2)
Chapter 4 1990's Australian and English Developments	77	(54)
A. The Australian Free Speech Decisions and Lange	77	(13)
1. Pre-Lange Defamation Law	78	(2)
2. The Theophanous Decision	80	(2)
3. The Lange Decision	82	(5)
4. Other Developments Related to the Law of Libel	87	(2)
5. Conclusions on Lange	89	(1)
B. Reynolds and the English Extension of Qualified Privilege	90	(41)
1. Developments Pre-Reynolds	90	(9)
2. The Reynolds Development	99	(12)
3. Measuring Up to the Human Rights Act 1998	111	(9)
4. Other Developments Related to the Law of Libel	120	(7)
i. Data Protection Laws	120	(4)
ii. Press Complaints Commission	124	(3)
5. Conclusions Regarding Reynolds	127	(4)
Chapter 5 Interview Results: England and Australia Prior to Qualified Privilege Extensions	131	(52)
A. Pre-Reynolds English Interviews	131	(19)
1. The External Perception: England's Tabloid Press	131	(7)
2. The English Interviews	138	(12)
i. Threats of Suits	139	(1)
ii. Post-Publication Suits and Threats of Suits	139	(2)
iii. Insurance	141	(1)
iv. Participation of Lawyers in the Editorial Process	141	(1)
v. The Role of Lawyers and the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard	142	(1)
vi. The Impact of the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard	143	(1)
vii. Hypothetical English Watergate	144	(2)
viii. Possible Effects of the English Standards—Cost-Benefit Calculations or More Balanced Reporting?	146	(1)
ix. Regional Newspapers	147	(1)
x. Ability to Report on Political Figures	148	(1)
xi. The Role of Privileges for Reporting Parliaments and Courts	149	(1)
xii. Ability to Report the Public Interest	150	(1)
B. The Australian Interviews: Pre-Lange	150	(30)
1. Threats of Suit	151	(1)
2. The Rate of Defamation Litigation	152	(3)
3. Responses to Threats of Suit: Pre-Publication	155	(1)
4. Responses to Post-Publication Suits and Threats of Suits	156	(2)
5. Insurance	158	(1)
6. The Motivations of Defamation Plaintiffs	159	(2)
7. Participation of Lawyers in the Editorial Process	161	(2)
8. The Role of Lawyers in the Editorial Process: Privileges and "Legally Admissible Evidence"	163	(2)
9. The Impact of the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard on Reporting	165	(4)
10. The Media and Particularly Litigious Individuals	169	(4)
11. A Resourceful Media	173	(2)
12. Ability to Report the Public Interest	175	(1)
13. A Hypothetical Australian "Watergate"	176	(1)
14. Australia's Cost Rules	177	(3)
C. Preliminary Conclusions: Regarding the Australian and English Media	180	(3)
Chapter 6 The American Interviews: The Impact of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the "Actual Malice Standard"	183	(18)
A. Suits and Threats of Suit	185	(3)
B. Responses to Suits and Threats of Suits: Pre-Publication	188	(1)
C. Responses to Threats of Suits: Post-Publication	189	(1)
D. Insurance	189	(1)
E. The Motivations of Defamation Plaintiffs	190	(1)
F. Lawyers and the Editorial Process	190	(1)
G. The Lawyer's Perspective in the Editorial Process	191	(2)
H. Particularly Litigious Individuals	193	(1)
I. Suits by Politicians	194	(1)
J. Suits by Police and Governmental Officials	194	(1)
K. Resourceful Media	195	(1)
L. Ability to Report the Public Interest	195	(4)
M. Cost Rules	199	(1)
N. Conclusions	200	(1)
Chapter 7 Interview Results: Australia Following Extensions to Qualified Privilege	201	(14)
A. Theophanous	201	(3)
B. Lange: Immediate Effects	204	(3)
C. Lange: Six Years On	207	(6)
1. Impact on the Pace of Litigation	207	(1)
2. Suits by Politicians	208	(1)
3. Suits by Police and Governmental Officials	209	(1)
4. Lawyers and the Editorial Process	209	(1)
5. Impact on Pre-Publication Advice	210	(1)
6. Uncertainties about Lange's Meaning and Application	211	(1)
7. Privileges and Legally Admissible Evidence	211	(1)
8. Impact on the Media's View of "Extremely Litigious Individuals"	212	(1)
9. The Continuing Impact of the Costs Rule	212	(1)
10. Additional Concerns	212	(1)
D. Conclusion	213	(2)
Chapter 8 Interview Results: Reynold's Impact on the English Media	215	(28)
A. Threats of Suit	215	(2)
B. The Rate of Defamation Litigation	217	(2)
C. Responses to Threats of Suit: Pre-Publication	219	(1)
D. Responses to Post-Publication Suits and Threats of Suits	220	(1)
E. Insurance	221	(1)
F. The Motivations of Defamation Plaintiffs	221	(1)
G. Participation of Lawyers in the Editorial Process	222	(1)
H. Reynolds and the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard	223	(3)
I. Ability to Report the Public Interest	226	(1)
J. Concerns About Reynolds	227	(6)
K. Reynolds and Particularly Litigious Individuals	233	(1)
L. Suits by Governmental Officials	234	(1)
M. Data Protection Laws	235	(1)
N. A Hypothetical English "Watergate"	236	(1)
O. Court Cost Rules	237	(3)
P. Conclusion	240	(3)
Chapter 9 Conclusions: Defamation, Free Speech and Reputation in Democratic Societies	243	(50)
A. The Common Law Approach	245	(1)
B. The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard	246	(20)
1. Does Sullivan Spawn Costly Litigation That Intrudes into Editorial Processes?	247	(5)
2. Large Damage Claims and Large Awards	252	(3)
3. Little Protection for Reputation	255	(1)
4. An "Irresponsible" Media?	256	(3)
5. Sullivan's Focus on Plaintiff's Status is Misdirected	259	(6)
6. Conclusions about "Actual Malice"	265	(1)
C. The Lange Approach	266	(6)
1. Is Litigation under Lange Complex and Intrusive?	267	(3)
2. Cost Rules and Plaintiff and Defendant Legal Expertise	270	(1)
3. A Focus on "Political Communication" not Plaintiff Status	271	(1)
D. The Reynolds Approach	272	(17)
1. Focus on the Public Interest	275	(1)
2. Complexity and Uncertainty	276	(1)
3. Regulation of the "Tone" of Allegations	277	(3)
4. Impact of Cost Rules	280	(1)
5. Pre-Publication Restraints	281	(1)
6. Conclusions about the Reynolds Approach	282	(7)
E. Conclusion: A Final Tally and Alternative Approaches	289	(4)
Bibliography	293	(12)
Table of Cases	305	(6)
Index	311