Defamation
« Previous Entries Next Entries »Interesting UK defamation trends
Friday, October 10th, 2008UK research into defamation reveals another hike in lawsuits from celebrities (32% of claims), and an increasing readiness by media organisations to settle (61% of cases result in a statement in open court). Results from 2007 had tracked an increase in claims from people accused of terrorism, and claims against posts on blogs and message […]
Libel by song
Thursday, October 9th, 2008A British magazine that quoted a song whose lyrics suggested that a politician was involved in an assault has settled a defamation lawsuit for a five-figure sum.
And speaking of defamation lawsuits involving fisheries…
Thursday, September 25th, 2008The Simunovich case (discussed below) isn’t the same as Winston Peters’ defamation lawsuit against TVNZ, Radio NZ and others about the fisheries issues – the case that saw Rodney Hide ejected from the House late last month. Peters fumed that Hide was improperly trying to raise issues during question time that were being contested in […]
Court of Appeal weighs in on Simunovich defamation case
Thursday, September 25th, 2008The defamation lawsuit brought by Simunovich Fisheries against TVNZ and others looks, from afar, like it involves the parties running an ultra-marathon through a labyrinth. Still, it’s the biggest defamation claim in NZ’s history (the plaintiffs are seeking nearly $30 million, and are arguing that most of that is actual financial losses). So there’s a lot […]
How to shut down speech on the internet. Maybe.
Thursday, September 4th, 2008Sebastian Hoegl, a masters student from Germany in my media law seminar, made a startling suggestion this week. Since we all access the internet via an ISP (we put in a web address, the ISP hives off, collects the data, and sends it to our computers), then the ISPs are publishing that material to us. […]
Defamation liability for threads on blogs and news websites
Sunday, August 31st, 2008Remember the basic rule of defamation: you publish it, you’re liable for it. That includes everyone involved in the publication. In a newspaper: the quoted source, the reporter, the subeditor, the editor, the publisher, the printer, the paperboy, and the bookshop. (The last three probably have a defence of innocent dissemination, as long as they’ve […]
Feeling sorry for Vince?
Tuesday, June 17th, 2008Poor Vincent Siemer. Facing a limitless stretch in the slammer for … what? A couple of websites? Oath. I’m afraid I find it difficult to get too worked up about Vince’s plight. He’d like to pitch his troubles as a freedom of expression battle against a corrupt businessman (his nemesis, Michael Stiassny), and corrupt lawyers (including his own), and […]
Who needs the BSA?
Tuesday, May 20th, 2008This might surprise you. I was looking at broadcast licences the other day. As you might guess, they can be subject to conditions, and most of the ones that are imposed relate to technical issues: making sure there’s no overlapping use of the spectrum, for example. Mostly, they’re nothing to do with the content of […]
To die like a blog
Saturday, April 19th, 2008Poneke is reporting that blogger HotTopic has withdrawn a post criticising the Listener and its editor after receiving a (presumably defamation) threat from the magazine’s lawyers. In its place, there’s a fullsome correction and apology (which looks to have been drafted by said lawyers). In the comments section of the correction and apology, someone has helpfully posted […]
Canadian Supreme Court to decide on new defamation defence
Thursday, April 10th, 2008Leave has been granted for the Canadian Supreme Court to rule on whether Canada will recognise a public interest/responsible journalism defence along the lines of Reynolds in the UK (and related to the Lange cases in NZ and Australia). I discussed the Canadian Court of Appeal decision here. The Canadian decision is likely to be […]
« Previous Entries Next Entries »