数字诽谤:在诽谤诉讼中使用民意调查

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2017-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987
Eric P. Robinson
{"title":"数字诽谤:在诽谤诉讼中使用民意调查","authors":"Eric P. Robinson","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract After a rocky start, polls became ubiquitous in the twentieth century in a variety of fields. However, the courts generally resisted accepting polls and other social science evidence until the early 1950s, on the grounds that they were hearsay. But while social scientists understand reputation in a variety of ways, the law sees an individual’s reputation as a social phenomenon. This makes the opinions of others an inherent part of the legal claim of defamation, and polls an obvious type of evidence in such cases. But use of polling evidence in defamation cases remains rare. This article examines courts’ acceptance of polling data as evidence in defamation cases, including the actual cases in which it has been used as evidence, and concludes with recommendations on how defamation litigants and courts considering defamation cases can use such evidence.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Libel by the numbers: The use of public opinion polls in defamation lawsuits\",\"authors\":\"Eric P. Robinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract After a rocky start, polls became ubiquitous in the twentieth century in a variety of fields. However, the courts generally resisted accepting polls and other social science evidence until the early 1950s, on the grounds that they were hearsay. But while social scientists understand reputation in a variety of ways, the law sees an individual’s reputation as a social phenomenon. This makes the opinions of others an inherent part of the legal claim of defamation, and polls an obvious type of evidence in such cases. But use of polling evidence in defamation cases remains rare. This article examines courts’ acceptance of polling data as evidence in defamation cases, including the actual cases in which it has been used as evidence, and concludes with recommendations on how defamation litigants and courts considering defamation cases can use such evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"First Amendment Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"First Amendment Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2017.1422987","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

摘要

经过艰难的开始,民意测验在20世纪的各个领域变得无处不在。然而,直到20世纪50年代初,法院普遍拒绝接受民意调查和其他社会科学证据,理由是它们是道听途说。但是,虽然社会科学家以各种方式理解声誉,但法律将个人的声誉视为一种社会现象。这使得他人的意见成为诽谤法律主张的固有组成部分,而民意调查在此类案件中是一种明显的证据类型。但在诽谤案件中使用民意调查证据仍然很少见。本文考察了法院在诽谤案件中接受民意调查数据作为证据的情况,包括将其用作证据的实际案件,并就诽谤诉讼人和审理诽谤案件的法院如何使用此类证据提出建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Libel by the numbers: The use of public opinion polls in defamation lawsuits
Abstract After a rocky start, polls became ubiquitous in the twentieth century in a variety of fields. However, the courts generally resisted accepting polls and other social science evidence until the early 1950s, on the grounds that they were hearsay. But while social scientists understand reputation in a variety of ways, the law sees an individual’s reputation as a social phenomenon. This makes the opinions of others an inherent part of the legal claim of defamation, and polls an obvious type of evidence in such cases. But use of polling evidence in defamation cases remains rare. This article examines courts’ acceptance of polling data as evidence in defamation cases, including the actual cases in which it has been used as evidence, and concludes with recommendations on how defamation litigants and courts considering defamation cases can use such evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
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