Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield


Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)


« | Main | »

There can be only one…

By Steven | November 29, 2009

Britain is¬† toying with abolishing the so-called “multiple publication rule” for defamation, and switching to a US-style “single publication rule”. Under the multiple publication rule, every different publication (ie newspaper copy sold, internet post downloaded, etc) is a separate publication and can be sued upon. This is particularly a problem for online archives, which effectively become new publications when someone accesses them, perhaps years after the original date of publication. What’s that you say? The limitation period will have expired? No, it’s a fresh publication, so the clock starts again. That’s the rule here at the moment too.

The¬†Ministry of Justice there has published a discussion paper¬†considering the pros and cons and inviting submissions. The single publication rule is actually more complicated than it sounds. When will a slightly modified publication, or one in a different format, be a “new” publication attracting liability? What happens if the person defamed doesn’t find out about it until after the limitation period expires?

The Ministry considers a range of possible reforms. I’m attracted to their minimal solutions: a qualified privilege for online archives, unless the publisher refuses or neglects to update the electronic version, on request, with a correction or reasonable letter of rebuttal. Publishers should also be obliged to flag any archive subject to a defamation claim so that users learn about it.

Topics: Defamation | No Comments »

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.