As we mentioned in a post last week the Defamation Act 2013 received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013. It is available on the “resources” section of the blog – although without the Explanatory Notes (which have still not been published). The 5RB website provides a short summary of the Act’s provisions. Continue reading
Inforrm's Blog
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Page 476 of 651
It is well known that a plaintiff has very little chance of getting an injunction to restrain the publication of defamatory matter. Courts will usually say that damages are an adequate remedy. It is also well known that the Defamation Act provides that, for the most part, a company cannot sue for defamation in Australia. So what does a company do? Injurious falsehood is the go. A company can sue if there is a false malicious publication and it causes actual financial loss to that company. Very difficult, especially proving malice and especially financial loss, but unlike defamation, the chance for an injunction is greatly increased. Continue reading
The recent Donald Ashby (sub nom Ashby Donald) decision of the European Court of Human Rights has revived interest in the relationship between copyright and freedom of expression. The litigation arose because two of the defendant photographers had put on their US website pictures taken by the third at the Paris fashion shows. Continue reading
On Monday 22 April 2013, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights held, by nine votes to eight, that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television did not violate Article 10. The majority opinion in Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom departed substantially from the Court’s previous case law on political advertising, and introduced a new method for reviewing the proportionality of such blanket-bans. Continue reading
The recent experience of Paris Brown, the 17-year-old who resigned before taking up her role as Kent’s Youth Police and Crime Commissioner following a furore surrounding comments she made on Twitter, demonstrates exactly the type of police activity that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, was seeking to prevent when he issued prosecution guidelines (the “Guidelines“) in December of last year.
Memo to anyone thinking of suing or threatening someone else for defamation after that person made fun of them. Don’t.
It’s not that the law clearly protects humorous speech and satire. That question is a bit vexed. It’s defamatory to say something that brings another person into ridicule. So it looks like that is fairly easily satisfied. Actually, those looks are deceptive. Continue reading
Last week, the Swaziland High Court handed down a decision with grave implications for freedom of expression. The Nation magazine, an independent publisher, and its editor Bheki Makhubu were found guilty of the crime of contempt of court, fined 400,000 emalangeni (about £28,000), and ordered to pay half of the fine within three days of the decision or be imprisoned for two years. Continue reading
The biggest news of the week is that the Defamation Bill received Royal Assent and is now the Defamation Act 2013, three years after the publication of Lord Lester’s original Defamation Bill. Inforrm reported the news and context here; a commentary by Jo Glanville, director of English PEN, can be found here. Robert Sharp, also of English PEN, has dissected some of the detail here and here. A report in Belfast Telegraph reports that Index on Censorship is questioning Stormont’s decision to block the Act from becoming law in Northern Ireland. Continue reading
On 25 April 2013 the rulers of Fleet Street thumbed their nose at four months of negotiations, campaigns and public protests to propose a Royal Charter which suits their aims. This press barons’ charter not only replicates but actually worsens the problems they tried to get away with in February. It allows substantial influence by politicians and serious interference from the press in the appointment and recognition of the new regulator and neuters its powers to handle complaints. Continue reading
Two care companies have issued libel proceedings against Rochdale Council and its Labour leader Colin Lambert after he said that the borough was the “wrong place” to put vulnerable youngsters in private care and that their safety was not being “guaranteed”. The remarks were made last year after nine men were convicted for the illegal grooming of under age girls for sex in Rochdale. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑