“一个人必须小心不要诋毁他的邻居”:为负责任的出版辩护的起源和意义

E. Descheemaeker
{"title":"“一个人必须小心不要诋毁他的邻居”:为负责任的出版辩护的起源和意义","authors":"E. Descheemaeker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2217139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article (written from an English perspective) explores two relatively overlooked dimensions of the defence of ‘responsible publication on a matter of public interest’ which was recognised by the House of Lords in the 1999 case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers and then put in a statutory form — using obfuscating language — by the Defamation Act 2013 (UK): namely, its origins and its significance in terms of tort theory. On the first point, the roots of the idea of responsible publication, in the sense that there should exist reasonable ground to believe the defamatory matter to be true, are traced into Australian law all the way down to Macintosh v Dun in 1906 and the Defamation (Amendment) Act 1909 of New South Wales. Concerning the second, the emphasis is put on the taking over of large swathes of defamation by what is essentially a negligence standard, historically alien to a cause of action that was entirely controlled by malice (and its rebuttal). Beyond the tort of defamation, this represents a milestone in terms of the unification of the standard of liability across the divide between patrimonial rights and personality rights.","PeriodicalId":83293,"journal":{"name":"The University of Queensland law journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"239-264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘A Man Must Take Care Not to Defame his Neighbour’: The Origins and Significance of the Defence of Responsible Publication\",\"authors\":\"E. Descheemaeker\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2217139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article (written from an English perspective) explores two relatively overlooked dimensions of the defence of ‘responsible publication on a matter of public interest’ which was recognised by the House of Lords in the 1999 case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers and then put in a statutory form — using obfuscating language — by the Defamation Act 2013 (UK): namely, its origins and its significance in terms of tort theory. On the first point, the roots of the idea of responsible publication, in the sense that there should exist reasonable ground to believe the defamatory matter to be true, are traced into Australian law all the way down to Macintosh v Dun in 1906 and the Defamation (Amendment) Act 1909 of New South Wales. Concerning the second, the emphasis is put on the taking over of large swathes of defamation by what is essentially a negligence standard, historically alien to a cause of action that was entirely controlled by malice (and its rebuttal). Beyond the tort of defamation, this represents a milestone in terms of the unification of the standard of liability across the divide between patrimonial rights and personality rights.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"239-264\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The University of Queensland law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2217139\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The University of Queensland law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2217139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

这篇文章(从英国的角度写的)探讨了“在公共利益问题上负责任的出版”辩护的两个相对被忽视的方面,这在1999年雷诺兹诉泰晤士报案中得到上议院的认可,然后在2013年诽谤法(英国)中以法定形式-使用模糊的语言:即,它的起源和它在侵权理论方面的意义。在第一点上,负责任的出版理念的根源,即应该存在合理的理由来相信诽谤事件是真实的,可以追溯到澳大利亚法律,一直到1906年的Macintosh诉Dun案和新南威尔士州1909年的诽谤(修正)法。关于第二种情况,重点是通过本质上是过失的标准来接管大量的诽谤,从历史上看,这种标准与完全由恶意(及其反驳)控制的诉因是不同的。在诽谤侵权行为之外,这是跨越世袭权和人格权界限统一责任标准的里程碑。
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
‘A Man Must Take Care Not to Defame his Neighbour’: The Origins and Significance of the Defence of Responsible Publication
This article (written from an English perspective) explores two relatively overlooked dimensions of the defence of ‘responsible publication on a matter of public interest’ which was recognised by the House of Lords in the 1999 case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers and then put in a statutory form — using obfuscating language — by the Defamation Act 2013 (UK): namely, its origins and its significance in terms of tort theory. On the first point, the roots of the idea of responsible publication, in the sense that there should exist reasonable ground to believe the defamatory matter to be true, are traced into Australian law all the way down to Macintosh v Dun in 1906 and the Defamation (Amendment) Act 1909 of New South Wales. Concerning the second, the emphasis is put on the taking over of large swathes of defamation by what is essentially a negligence standard, historically alien to a cause of action that was entirely controlled by malice (and its rebuttal). Beyond the tort of defamation, this represents a milestone in terms of the unification of the standard of liability across the divide between patrimonial rights and personality rights.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Robodebt and Novel Data Technologies in the Public Sector The Territorial Scope of Australia’s Unfair Contract Terms Provisions Regulating Decisions that Lead to Loss of Life in Workplaces Lending on the Edge Substantive Equality and the Possibilities of the Queensland Human Rights Act 2019
×
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