Damages for reputational harm: can privacy actions tread on defamation’s turf?

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Media Law Pub Date : 2021-07-03 DOI:10.1080/17577632.2021.2012393
J. Hariharan
{"title":"Damages for reputational harm: can privacy actions tread on defamation’s turf?","authors":"J. Hariharan","doi":"10.1080/17577632.2021.2012393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In four recent cases, the High Court of England and Wales has had to consider whether damages for reputational harm can be recovered in a claim for misuse of private information (‘MOPI’). This is an important issue which sharpens focus on the precise boundaries between privacy and defamation law. And yet it is a question on which the court is currently divided, with different judges coming to different conclusions on whether, and on what basis, reputational harm damages can be awarded in a privacy claim. This article argues that the key to resolving this issue is to better understand: (1) the precise interests protected by defamation and MOPI; and (2) how the interests protected by each tort are tied to the available heads of damage. Unpacking these points in turn, the article explains why damages for reputational harm should be restricted to defamation and be unavailable in a MOPI claim.","PeriodicalId":37779,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2021.2012393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In four recent cases, the High Court of England and Wales has had to consider whether damages for reputational harm can be recovered in a claim for misuse of private information (‘MOPI’). This is an important issue which sharpens focus on the precise boundaries between privacy and defamation law. And yet it is a question on which the court is currently divided, with different judges coming to different conclusions on whether, and on what basis, reputational harm damages can be awarded in a privacy claim. This article argues that the key to resolving this issue is to better understand: (1) the precise interests protected by defamation and MOPI; and (2) how the interests protected by each tort are tied to the available heads of damage. Unpacking these points in turn, the article explains why damages for reputational harm should be restricted to defamation and be unavailable in a MOPI claim.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
名誉损害损害赔偿:隐私诉讼可以践踏诽谤的地盘吗?
摘要在最近的四起案件中,英格兰和威尔士高等法院不得不考虑是否可以在滥用私人信息的索赔中收回名誉损害赔偿金。这是一个重要问题,使人们更加关注隐私法和诽谤法之间的确切界限。然而,这是法院目前存在分歧的一个问题,不同的法官对隐私权索赔中是否以及在什么基础上可以判给名誉损害赔偿得出了不同的结论。本文认为,解决这一问题的关键在于更好地理解:(1)诽谤和MOPI所保护的确切利益;以及(2)每种侵权行为所保护的利益如何与可获得的损害赔偿额挂钩。文章反过来阐述了这些观点,解释了为什么名誉损害赔偿应仅限于诽谤,而不能在MOPI索赔中使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Media Law
Journal of Media Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The only platform for focused, rigorous analysis of global developments in media law, this peer-reviewed journal, launched in Summer 2009, is: essential for teaching and research, essential for practice, essential for policy-making. It turns the spotlight on all those aspects of law which impinge on and shape modern media practices - from regulation and ownership, to libel law and constitutional aspects of broadcasting such as free speech and privacy, obscenity laws, copyright, piracy, and other aspects of IT law. The result is the first journal to take a serious view of law through the lens. The first issues feature articles on a wide range of topics such as: Developments in Defamation · Balancing Freedom of Expression and Privacy in the European Court of Human Rights · The Future of Public Television · Cameras in the Courtroom - Media Access to Classified Documents · Advertising Revenue v Editorial Independence · Gordon Ramsay: Obscenity Regulation Pioneer?
期刊最新文献
The Bypass Strategy: platforms, the Online Safety Act and future of online speech Freedom of expression after disinformation: Towards a new paradigm for the right to receive information The Digital Services Act’s red line: what the Commission can and cannot do about disinformation The regulation of disinformation: a critical appraisal The EU policy on disinformation: aims and legal basis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1