《限定特权:澳大利亚和英国诽谤法律与实践》

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Melbourne University Law Review Pub Date : 2005-09-22 DOI:10.4324/9781315254999-20
A. Kenyon
{"title":"《限定特权:澳大利亚和英国诽谤法律与实践》","authors":"A. Kenyon","doi":"10.4324/9781315254999-20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Australian and English case law has developed qualified privilege defences that are available to the media and appear to protect more political or public interest speech than traditional defamation law. This article draws on judicial decisions and qualitative research into defamation litigation to examine the defences' scope, strength and practicality in litigation. England's Reynolds privilege emerges as a well-supported, relatively strong, flexible and innovative defence, especially compared with Australia's narrower and weaker privileges under Lange and New South Wales legislation. The research strongly supports the further development of Australian privilege defences, as well as more careful consideration of judge and jury roles in each country. A closer understanding of Reynolds offers important benefits for protecting the publication of public interest news and commentary, and it is particularly useful in light of recent, and proposed, Australian law reforms.","PeriodicalId":46300,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne University Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"406"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2005-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lange and Reynolds Qualified Privilege: Australian and English Defamation Law and Practice\",\"authors\":\"A. Kenyon\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781315254999-20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Australian and English case law has developed qualified privilege defences that are available to the media and appear to protect more political or public interest speech than traditional defamation law. This article draws on judicial decisions and qualitative research into defamation litigation to examine the defences' scope, strength and practicality in litigation. England's Reynolds privilege emerges as a well-supported, relatively strong, flexible and innovative defence, especially compared with Australia's narrower and weaker privileges under Lange and New South Wales legislation. The research strongly supports the further development of Australian privilege defences, as well as more careful consideration of judge and jury roles in each country. A closer understanding of Reynolds offers important benefits for protecting the publication of public interest news and commentary, and it is particularly useful in light of recent, and proposed, Australian law reforms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Melbourne University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"406\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Melbourne University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254999-20\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254999-20","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

澳大利亚和英国的判例法已经发展出合格的特权辩护,这些辩护适用于媒体,似乎比传统的诽谤法更能保护政治或公共利益言论。本文通过对诽谤诉讼的司法判决和定性研究来考察诉讼抗辩的范围、力度和实用性。与澳大利亚在兰格和新南威尔士州立法下的狭窄和较弱的特权相比,英格兰的雷诺兹特权成为一种有充分支持、相对强大、灵活和创新的辩护。该研究强烈支持澳大利亚特权辩护的进一步发展,以及对每个国家法官和陪审团角色的更仔细考虑。更深入地了解雷诺兹对保护公众利益新闻和评论的出版有重要的好处,而且考虑到最近提出的澳大利亚法律改革,它尤其有用。
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
Lange and Reynolds Qualified Privilege: Australian and English Defamation Law and Practice
Australian and English case law has developed qualified privilege defences that are available to the media and appear to protect more political or public interest speech than traditional defamation law. This article draws on judicial decisions and qualitative research into defamation litigation to examine the defences' scope, strength and practicality in litigation. England's Reynolds privilege emerges as a well-supported, relatively strong, flexible and innovative defence, especially compared with Australia's narrower and weaker privileges under Lange and New South Wales legislation. The research strongly supports the further development of Australian privilege defences, as well as more careful consideration of judge and jury roles in each country. A closer understanding of Reynolds offers important benefits for protecting the publication of public interest news and commentary, and it is particularly useful in light of recent, and proposed, Australian law reforms.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Assessing Refugee Protection Claims at Australian Airports: The Gap Between Law, Policy, and Practice Tricked into marriage Is a cause of action a castle? Statutory choses in action as property and s51(xxxi) of the Constitution The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law: The Rationale for a Statelessness Determination Procedure Non-consensual porn and the responsibilities of online intermediaries
×
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