|
The 16th and 17th century criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism in England eventually evolved into various categories of political libel (see slander and libel for the modern incarnation of this law). Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel had been established. “Libel†redirects here. ...
The Star Chamber (Latin Camera stellata) was an English court of law at the royal Palace of Westminster that sat between 1487 and 1641, when the court itself was abolished. ...
Modern slander and libel law evolved since then to mostly eradicate the use of libel laws to intimidate active political participants during a public debate. Accordingly this is now a matter of historical interest only in all jurisdictions other than Canada, where use of the law by government, political and religious groups is common, and often used against defendants outside Canada. “Libel†redirects here. ...
No longer exists in most English speaking jurisdictions
In most developed countries, a combination of discouragment to vexatious litigation, general recognition of chilling effects, and sometimes formal definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, serve to limit politically-motivated libel suits. Many attorneys advise strongly against filing any suit against critics with political motivations. The McLibel case is usually cited as libel law backfiring. Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. ...
A chilling effect is a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group. ...
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) is a form of litigation filed by a large corporation or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. ...
The McLibel case is the nickname for an English court action filed by McDonalds Corporation against unemployed environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris. ...
Many jurisdictions established such difficult tests for application of libel law to political statements, even exempting specific types or processes of criticism, that any specifically or overtly political comment has been effectively exempted from tort law: In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ...
- Recognizing the chilling effect of such laws, American courts reformed libel law to protect free speech on matters of public interest, where plaintiffs bear onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage. All statements of opinion are immune from liability. This includes almost all political statements.
- In Australia the traditional common law was deemed to be “tilted too far against free communication.” (Theophanous p. 20) and courts recognized privileges for political discussion and eventually a new 2006 uniform Defamation Act in Australia.
- The British House of Lords recognized in 2001 a new test for a case-by-case privilege for publications which, though otherwise actionable, dealt with a matter of public concern in a manner which was reasonable and balanced in all the circumstances. They recognized an obligation to protect journalism.
- New Zealand's Defamation Act includes a qualified privilege for non-reckless statements about political figures.
A chilling effect is a situation where speech or conduct is suppressed or limited by fear of penalization at the hands of an individual or group. ...
Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated. ...
Pronuced: O-n&s onus is literary and legal term meaning burden or obligation of proof. ...
This article is about the British House of Lords. ...
Journalism is a discipline of writing. ...
Canada However, the direction of Canadian libel law has markedly differed from that in other English speaking countries. While Canadian lawyers, like those in other countries, advise strongly and publicly against legal intimidation of political critics, the Law of Defamation in Canada notes that the common law of defamation has been described by scholars and judges as “artificial and archaic” and characterized by “absurdities”, “irrationality”, and “minute and barren distinctions” (p. 1-3). Dan Burnett argued that "other “free and democratic societies” have concluded that the traditional common law requires reform" to avoid infringing free expression and political freedom, but Canada has not. It also inhibits online journalism. Burnett says "Internet publication by media outlets opens the door wide to forum shopping, raising concerns that Canada will become a haven for libel plaintiffs who likely would not succeed in their more natural forum." Several online journalism forums in Canada have closed or restricted access drastically due to the exposure to nuisance or vexatious litigation. Freedom of speech is the liberty to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related liberty to hear what others have stated. ...
This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality. ...
Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some plaintiffs to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favourable judgment, or by some defendants who seek to have the case moved to a different court. ...
Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. ...
Forum shopping The definition of libel deviates so significantly in Canada, particularly English Canada, that plaintiffs outside Canada bring libel suits against non-Canadian defendants such as the New York Post and the Washington Post - a practice known as forum shopping. Burnett says "they likely have good legal advisers who correctly tell them that Canadian libel laws favour plaintiffs... our libel laws are the least protective of free speech in the English-speaking world." In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someones reputation. ...
The New York Post is the 13th-oldest[] newspaper published in the United States and the oldest to have been published continually as a daily. ...
...
Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some plaintiffs to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favourable judgment, or by some defendants who seek to have the case moved to a different court. ...
p2pnet.net A suit by the founder of Kazaa, based in Australia, was launched against p2pnet.net, to silence critics of the company and its founder. The case was not however launched in Australia proper but in British Columbia, seemingly an example of this forum shopping. Kazaa Media Desktop (once capitalized as KaZaA, but now usually left as Kazaa) is a controversial peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol. ...
Religious plaintiffs While religious figures and movements have recourse to other laws including hate crime legislation, they have made use of the libel law's provisions intended to stop political critics of powerful church figures. A Jewish cemetery in France after being defaced by Neo-Nazis. ...
Hill v. Scientology Despite Canadian adoption of the US-style written Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the 1980s, its courts have rejected US-style limits on libel law. While it was not overtly a political case, more one of freedom of religion, in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto [1995] S.C.J. No. 64, Justice Peter Cory, for the Supreme Court of Canada, stated, “I simply cannot see that the law of defamation is unduly restrictive or inhibiting”. However, other English speaking countries have ruled differently. From about 1994 to 2006, according to Burnett, "the highest courts in England, Australia and New Zealand have all recognized that the traditional law of libel fails to adequately protect free speech, and they have all issued decisions which begin to right the balance. Every one, that is, except Canada." The Charter, signed by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1981. ...
The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society. ...
The Honourable Peter deCarteret Cory, B.A., LL.B., LL.D. (born October 25, 1925) was a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1989 to 1999. ...
The Supreme Court of Canada (French: Cour suprême du Canada) is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal in the Canadian justice system. ...
Political plaintiffs An aspect of this favouring of plaintiffs is unconcern with their political position, and the viability of political libel suits from Canada that would fail from elsewhere. Only in Canada are statements about politics, even from political party leaders in or on the eve of an election, accorded no priveleges whatsoever, not even a defense of truth. Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. ...
Martin and Harper Just prior to the Canadian federal election, 2006, then Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin vowed to sue Leader of the Opposition (Canada) Stephen Harper for stating that the Liberal Party of Canada's behaviour resembled "organized crime". Harper continued to mock Martin during the election with political advertising and public appearances showing money being abused and hinting that Liberals were inclined to steal taxpayers' money by nature. No lawsuit was filed and Harper won the election. However, the attempt to silence the Prime Minister's chief rival on the eve of an election was widely noted. Rendition of party representation in the 39th Canadian parliament decided by this election. ...
The Prime Minister of Canada (French: Premier ministre du Canada), is the head of the Government of Canada. ...
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin (born August 28, 1938), sometimes referred to as Paul Martin Jr, was the 21st Prime Minister of Canada and a former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. ...
The Leader of the Opposition (French: Chef de lOpposition) in Canada is the Member of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons who leads Her Majestys Loyal Opposition (the body in Parliament recognized as the Official Opposition). ...
Stephen Joseph Harper (born April 30, 1959) is the 22nd and current Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. ...
The Liberal Party of Canada (French: ), colloquially known as the Grits (originally Clear Grits), is a Canadian federal political party. ...
Organized crime or criminal organizations are groups or operations run by criminals, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit. ...
A political campaign is an effort to reach a certain political goal. ...
Green Party of Canada The "open politics" service openpolitics.ca was sued by Wayne Crookes and West Coast Title Search in 2006 for permitting republication of comments and facts made on mailing lists and printed in mainstream news articles, and additional comment on these. As Crookes was deeply involved in the Green Party of Canada and the comments focused solely on this involvement, without mentioning his business activities at all, the case was seemingly another political libel instance. The party itself had filed at least one lawsuit during the same election as the Martin-Harper incident, against former staff member Matthew Pollesel. These suits claimed that the defendants defamed officers of the party in reports to the press and Elections Canada regarding the party's internal finances. Both suits were withdrawn shortly after the election, effectively demonstrating that their purpose had been to suppress political comment during the election, and not an attempt to recover any actual damages from any actual harms suffered. The open politics combines traditions of the free software and open content movements with postmoderism, and promotes a decision making method claimed to be a more open, less antagonistic, and more capable of determining what is in the public interest with respect to public policy issues. ...
This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ...
The Green Party of Canada is a Canadian federal political party founded in 1983. ...
Elections Canada is the non-partisan agency of the Government of Canada responsible for the conduct of federal elections and referendums. ...
Government plaintiffs Government agencies in Canada have also sometimes used the law against their critics.
Toronto Port Authority In 2006 the Toronto Port Authority (a quasi-Federal Government agency) started against a neighbourhood residents group - Community Air. The group opposed the Port Authority's support for expanded service at the downtown Toronto City Centre Airport. The suit claims that the agency and its executive board has been defamed by comments posted on the advocacy groups website. This has also been called a SLAPP suit. Toronto Port Authority (TPA) is a Port Authority responsible for all activities in the Port of Toronto, including the Toronto City Centre Airport. ...
Community Air is a non-profit resident association in the city of Toronto, Canada that seeks to have the Toronto City Centre Airport shut down. ...
Toronto/City Centre Airport, (IATA: YTZ, ICAO: CYTZ), in Toronto, Ontario, Canada is a regional airport located on the Toronto Islands. ...
Strategic lawsuits against public participation, (SLAPP) refers to litigation filed by a large corporation (or in some cases, a wealthy individual) to silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. ...
Sources - Lawyers Weekly article by Dan Burnett, October 27, 2006.
- Law of Defamation in Canada, Brown
- American cases demonstrating restrictive US definition of libel: Gertz v. Welch, 418 U.S. 323, Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254.
- Australian cases: Theophanous v. The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd. (1994), 124 Aust. L.R. 1 (H.C.) and Lange v. Australian Broadcasting (1997) 145 A.L.R. 96 (H.C.A.).
- English cases: Jameel v. Wall Street Journal [2006] UKHL 44
- Canadian cases:
- NZ cases: Lange v. Atkinson [2000] 3 NZLR 385
|
Feeds |
Contact