The reform of defamation law in Scotland

No abstract available

The reform of defamation law in Scotland

No abstract available

First Amendment (Un)Exceptionalism: A Comparative Taxonomy of Campaign Finance Reform Proposals in the United States and United Kingdom

There is an urgent conversation happening among the world’s democracies about how to respond to the combined threat of online electioneering and foreign interference in domestic elections. Despite the shadow such activities cast over the 2016 presidential election in the United States, the US has been largely absent from comparative discussions about how to tackle the problem. This is not just because of a recalcitrant president. The assumption that America’s “First Amendment Exceptionalism” – the idea that American freedom of expression law is simply too much of an outlier to warrant useful comparative consideration – is strong on both sides of the Atlantic. This is especially true in regard to the regulation of political campaigns.This article challenges that assumption, and argues that America’s more libertarian approach to the legal regulation of political speech does not pose a barrier to fruitful comparative work in this area. It does so by comparing the law of the US to that of the UK. Specifically, it organizes reform proposals being considered in the US and UK into a common taxonomy, and sets out the legal standard governing each type of proposal in each country. Considering each country’s law through this organizational structure allows us to see that the legal differences between the US and UK, while significant, rarely bar the types of changes being considered in either nation. Indeed, the two countries have much to learn from each other’s efforts in this area, and lawmakers, regulators, and scholars should not hesitate to engage with the experiences of their transatlantic peers.In reaching this conclusion, the paper makes three distinct contributions. First, by clustering reform proposals into a taxonomy, it provides a structure for comparative work that will be useful not just in the US and UK, but in all countries working to bring their election laws fully into the internet era. Second, by providing an in-depth yet accessible guide to the legal structures undergirding election law in the US and UK, it provides a useful tool for scholars attempting to understand these systems. The US system in particular is often quickly dismissed by other nations, but without a deeper understanding of how and why US law has ended up as it has those nations risk inadvertently following in its footsteps. Finally, it identifies several concrete areas where the US and UK can benefit from each other’s expertise, thereby providing a roadmap for regulators, lawmakers, and reform advocates in both countries

The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn in the light of section 17 Of The Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965 in South Africa

Magister Legum - LLMSouth Africa, among others, has adopted, and is bound by, the so-called 'rule in Hollington‘ that originated in England in 1943 in Hollington v Hewthorn (hereinafter the 'Hollington case‘). The issue, among others, that the English Appeal Court had to determine in this case was whether a judgement of a criminal court could be used in subsequent civil proceedings to prove the liability of either of the litigants. The Court reached the conclusion that a judgement of a criminal court is just an irrelevant and inadmissible opinion in later civil proceedings. The court adopted the view that had a criminal conviction been admissible evidence in civil proceedings, it would lead to a situation where the defendant would end up challenging the propriety of those convictions. In the light of that, the courts would be faced with a duty to retry the criminal case in the midst of the civil proceedings. Section 17 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act (CPEA) provides that a conviction or an acquittal can be proved by the production of a document dully certified by the relevant court that acquitted or convicted the person in question. Furthermore, section 18 of the Supreme Court Act (SuCA) now section 34 of the Superior Courts Act (SupCA) provides that whenever a judgement, among other things, of a court needs to be proved or referred to in any manner a duly certified copy thereof will serve as prima facie evidence thereof. These sections militate against the rule in Hollington in that they allow, or at least should be interpreted in a manner that accords with the allowance of, the admissibility of conviction evidence in later civil law suits

Re-Imagining Resolution of Online Defamation Disputes

If an individual or company is defamed online, they have two options to resolve the dispute, absent a technical solution. They can complain to an intermediary or launch a civil action. Both are deficient for a variety of reasons. Civil litigation is often unsuitable given the nature of online communications (across different platforms, jurisdictions, involving multiple parties, and spread with ease), the length and cost of litigation, and the ineffectiveness of traditional remedies. Intermediary dispute resolution processes can sometimes be effective, but lack industry standards and due process, place intermediaries in pseudo-judicial roles, and depend on the changeable commitments of management. At its core, the problem is the high-volume, low-value, and legally complex matrix of online defamation disputes. In this article, I ask: Are there alternative ways to resolve disputes that would improve access to justice and resolution for complainants? The key to resolving some of these problems, I argue, is revisiting the basic issue of what complainants want in the resolution of a defamation dispute and then connecting this with innovations in dispute resolution. Ultimately, I recommend the creation of an online tribunal as a complement to traditional court action. In coming to this conclusion, I explore various issues and proposals for reform, including the challenges wrought by online defamation, what defamation claimants want when they sue, the role of technology in resolving such disputes, streamlined court processes, online dispute resolution, and the regulatory role of intermediaries

The Credibility Effect: Defamation Law and Audiences

What should be the legal response to false statements? In the context of defamation law, courts try to set a standard that balances the interests of speakers and their potential targets. This article empirically demonstrates an unappreciated effect of such decisions on third parties: a credibility effect. Using a series of lab experiments, I find that defamation law makes individuals more trusting of reports from various media. This credibility effect is desirable when the report is true but can lead to unintended consequences in the case of misinformation. In particular, the credibility effect is shown to cast a stigma on innocent targets who choose not to file lawsuits. The existence of the credibility effect calls for different balances than are currently employed in defamation law; challenges the vindication justification; and, more broadly, illustrates the limits of policies intended to fight misinformation

Civil Society Challenged: Towards an Enabling Policy Environment

The roles of non-governmental or civil society organizations have become more complex, especially in the context of changing relationships with nation states and the international community. In many instances, state–civil society relations have worsened, leading experts to speak of a "shrinking space" for civil society nationally as well as internationally. The author proposes to initiate a process for the establishment of an independent high-level commission of eminent persons (i) to examine the changing policy environment for civil society organizations in many countries as well as internationally, (ii) to review the reasons behind the shrinking space civil society encounters in some parts of the world and its steady development in others, and (iii) to make concrete proposals for how the state and the international system on the one hand and civil society on the other hand can relate in productive ways in national and multilateral contexts

K-Pop’s Secret Weapon: South Korea’s Criminal Defamation Laws

South Korea’s criminal defamation laws have long been considered an intrusion on the free speech rights of citizens, especially in regard to the usage by politicians against their opponents and journalists to suppress criticisms. This Comment considers the history and effects of these controversial defamation laws through the lens of recent scandals within the Korean entertainment industry, where regular citizens accusing Korean celebrities of past school violence are confronted with threats of defamation charges. To highlight the controversial nature of such laws, comparisons will be drawn between South Korea and other countries to highlight the restrictive nature of Korea’s laws