{"id":497,"date":"2019-02-27T17:01:21","date_gmt":"2019-02-27T17:01:21","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-11T10:35:52","modified_gmt":"2019-06-11T10:35:52","slug":"laws-defamation-protect-media-7823","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php","title":{"rendered":"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?"},"content":{"rendered":"

An exploration, critical analysis and evaluation of the \u201cReynolds\u201d defence established in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd<\/em><\/h4>\n

1.0 INTRODUCTION <\/h2>\n

Defamation
\nis defined as, \u2018\u2026 the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person
\nin the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or which
\ntends to make them shun or avoid that person\u2019.[1]<\/a>
\nIn light of the recent increase in usage of social media, claims of defamation
\nhave never been more prevalent in society.[2]<\/a>
\nClaimants are challenging the law and turning to alternative causes of action,
\nsuch as misuse of private information, breach of data protection or harassment.[3]<\/a>
\nDue to the tremendous amount of claims over the years and as the law developed it
\nwas stated under the Defamation Act 2013<\/strong>,
\nthat claimants will have to show they suffered \u201cserious harm\u201d before suing.[4]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation. The defences in defamation will be address, in particular the Reynolds defence which came about after the key case known as Reynolds v The Times Newspaper<\/strong>[5]<\/a>. Furthermore, it will also aim to show post-Reynolds test as affirmed in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe<\/strong>.[6]<\/a> This then brings upon a change with the introduction of the Defamation Act 2013<\/a><\/strong>. This study will then analyse upon how to strike a balance between the need to protect reputation and the general right to freedom of speech. Finally, the law of defamation in the United States (US) will be compared to the law of defamation in United Kingdom (UK).<\/p>\n

2.0 TYPES OF DEFAMATION <\/h2>\n

The history of defamation<\/a> brings us to the early 1300s whereby the actions for defamation were purely within the jurisdiction of the Church courts. It was stated that the common law action for defamation came about in 1500s.[7]<\/a> It was not until 1660 that the common law drew a distinction between the two types of defamation, libel and slander.[8]<\/a> The permanent and often written statement is known as libel where else the impermanent and often spoken about is known as slander.[9]<\/a> In 1975, the Faulkes Committee<\/strong> recommended that they should abolish the distinction between libel and slander in English law  but the distinction still remains the same despite the Defamation Act 1996<\/strong>.[10]<\/a> Although the distinction between libel and slander are based on oral and written statements, the development of modern methods of communication further complicated the matter.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n

One
\ntest for distinguishing between the two turns upon permanence versus
\ntransience.[12]<\/a>
\nIn Monson v Tussauds Ltd<\/strong>[13]<\/a>,
\nLopes LJ<\/strong> states that \u2018Libels are
\ngenerally in writing or printing, but this is not necessary; the defamatory
\nmatter may be conveyed in some other permanent form.[14]<\/a>
\nFor instance, a statute, a caricature, an effigy, chalk marks on a wall, signs
\nor pictures may constitute a libel.[15]<\/a>
\nDefamatory words, pictures, visual images and gestures on radio or television
\nor any other \u2018programme service\u2019 are to be treated as libels[16]<\/a>.[17]<\/a>
\nFurthermore, \u2018the publication of defamatory words in the course of a performance
\nof a play\u2019 is also treated as libel[18]<\/a>.[19]<\/a><\/p>\n

A
\nlater case, Youssopoff v
\nMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd<\/strong>[20]<\/a>
\nsuggests a modified version of this test, by which it is necessary to show not
\nonly that the communication is permanent but also that it is visible.[21]<\/a>
\nSlesser LJ<\/strong> held in this case that
\nthe film pictures being \u2018a permanent matter to be seen by the eye\u2019 could be
\ndeemed as libels.[22]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

A
\nlibellous statement retains its status as a libel even when it is read aloud.[23]<\/a>
\nThis was decided in the case of Forrester
\nv Tyrrell[24]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>, whereby a person
\nreading aloud from a defamatory letter was held to be liable in libel rather
\nthan slander; it was immaterial whether or not he had handed the letter around.[25]<\/a>
\nLibel statements are said to be actionable per se, however slander generally
\nrequired proof of actual injury.[26]<\/a>
\nThis means the claimant has to show some loss of harm of monetary value or
\ndamage assessable in monetary terms.[27]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

3.0 ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION <\/h2>\n

There
\nare a few essential elements of the cause of action that has to be satisfied
\nbefore it can be said to be a defamatory statement. In all cases, it is the
\nduty of the claimant to prove that the statement is defamatory.  In the case of Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome[28]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nLord Reid<\/strong> said that it was not in
\nthe judge\u2019s position to \u2018frame definitions or to lay down hard and fast
\nrules.  It is their function to enunciate
\nprinciples and much that they say is intended to be illustrative or explanatory
\nand not to be definitive.\u2019[29]<\/a>
\nIn Sim v Stretch[30]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nLord Atkin<\/strong> suggested that the test
\nshould be whether \u2018would the words tend to lower the claimant in the estimation
\nof right-thinking members of society generally?\u2019 This in turn raises the
\nquestion of who are \u2018right-thinking members of society\u2019.[31]<\/a>
\nIn some circles of society behaviour is admired which in other circles would be
\ncondemned.[32]<\/a><\/p>\n

In
\nBerkoff v Burchill[33]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nthe claimant was an actor that was described by the defendant as \u2018hideously
\nugly\u2019.[34]<\/a>
\nHe alleged that this comment held him up to ridicule or meant that other people
\nwould shun or avoid him. The majority in the Court of Appeal held that the
\nwords were capable of being defamatory. However, Lord Millett dissenting said that
\nit was merely a joke and was not capable of being defamatory.[35]<\/a>
\nThe difference in the view of the judges in this case of Berkoff v Burchill<\/strong> only come to show how difficult it is to decide
\nhow words may be seen by ordinary people.[36]<\/a>
\nIn conclusion, the only certainty appears to be that the decision as to whether
\nor not words are capable of being defamatory depends on what the judges in the
\nparticular case believe would be the reaction of those they believe to be
\nordinary citizens.[37]<\/a><\/p>\n

The
\nsecond element of defamation is that the statement made must refer to the
\nclaimant.[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

In
\nthe case of Knuppfer v London Express[39]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nViscount Simon LC<\/strong> stated that \u2018it is
\nan essential element of the cause of action in defamation that the words
\ncomplained of should be published \u201cof the plaintiff\u201d.[40]<\/a>
\nThe forthright way would be to name and provide other information so that the
\nidentity of the person referred to is clear.[41]<\/a>  However, it is not always clear as problems
\nwill arise where the defendant either did not know of the claimant\u2019s existence.[42]<\/a>
\nLord Shaw<\/strong> quotes a passage from Bourke v Warren[43]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>
\nfor the judgement of E Hulton & Co v
\nJones[44]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>
\nwhich states \u2018it is not necessary that all the world should understand the
\nlibel; it is sufficient if those who knew the claimant can make out that he is
\nthe person meant\u2019.[45]<\/a>
\nIn Newstead v London Express Newspaper
\nLtd[46]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nthe claimant shared the same name as the person mentioned in the statement.[47]<\/a>
\nThe matter then went to the Court of Appeal, Sir Wilfred Greene MR<\/strong> dismissed the appeal by saying that \u2018if there
\nis a risk of coincidence, it ought I think, in reason to be borne, not by the
\ninnocent party to whom the words are held to refer, but by the party who puts
\nthem into circulation\u2019.[48]<\/a><\/p>\n

The
\nthird element is that the statement made must be published.[49]<\/a>
\n\u2018Publication\u2019 here means no more than \u2018communication\u2019 even to a single person,
\nand a publisher is any person who communicates a defamatory meaning to a third
\nparty.[50]<\/a>  At least one other person must hear or read
\nthe statement and understand it for it to be considered a defamatory statement.[51]<\/a>
\nNewspapers and books are published so that any defamatory material they contain
\nis published to the readers.[52]<\/a>
\nIn the case of Huth v Huth[53]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nLord Reading CJ<\/strong> stated that \u2018it is
\nno part of a butler\u2019s duty to open letters that come to the house of his master
\nor mistress\u2026 no one can help a man\u2019s curiosity being excited, but it does not
\njustify him in opening a letter, and it could not make the defendant liable for
\nthe publication to the butler of the contents of the envelope\u2026\u2019.[54]<\/a>
\nAn exception however is made to the rule concerning publications between
\nspouses, a husband cannot make a publication to his wife or a wife to her
\nhusband as per the case of Wennhak v
\nMorgan[55]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>
\nbecause this would otherwise lead to a disastrous results of social life.[56]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

Once
\ndefamatory material has been put into circulation by the original publisher,
\nthere can be liability for repeated publications by others unless the
\nrepetition is unauthorised and\/ or is not a natural and probable consequence
\nwhich can reasonably be foreseen.[57]<\/a>
\nIn Slipper v BBC[58]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nthe claimant claimed that the film was defamatory and alleged that BBC knew and
\nwould foresee that the preview tapes were likely to be reviewed in the national
\npress; alternatively, that it was the natural and probable consequence that such
\nreviews would be published.[59]<\/a><\/p>\n

4.0 DEFENCES <\/h2>\n

Moving
\non, due to the increase in the number of claims of defamation, a defendant now would
\nhave numerous opportunities to assert an affirmative defence against such
\nclaims.[60]<\/a><\/p>\n

There
\nare general defences for liability in tort applied in relation to actions in
\ndefamation such as the defence of consent which was seen in the case of Monson v Tussauds Ltd[61]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>.
\nThe focus, however, is upon those defences which are distinctive to a
\nparticular cause of action.  Amongst the many
\ndefences a few of them are; the defence of truth, honest opinion, publication
\non matter of public interest and privilege which comes in the form of absolute
\nprivilege and qualified privilege.  <\/p>\n

The
\nfirst defence is the defence of truth. Traditionally, these principles
\nwere represented by the common law defence of \u2018justification\u2019 but this was
\nreplaced in 2013 by a new statutory defence of \u2018truth\u2019.[62]<\/a>
\nUnder the current law, a defendant has a defence of \u2018justification\u2019 where he or
\nshe can prove that the imputation in respect of which he is being sued is
\nsubstantially true.[63]<\/a>
\nEven though, the fact that any rumour may be true, the defendant will still have
\nto prove that the facts alleged in the rumour are true as per the case of Shah v Standard Chartered Bank[64]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>.
\nIn contrast, it is possible for a defendant to succeed where the statement
\nmakes it clear that the defamatory accusation is in fact false. <\/p>\n

The
\nnext defence is the defence of honest opinion. This provides a defence,
\nin certain circumstances for statements of opinion as opposed to facts.[65]<\/a>
\nIn Spiller v Joseph[66]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\nLord Philips of Worth Matravers<\/strong>
\nsuggested that there should be a review of the law and stated that the common
\nlaw defence of \u2018fair comment\u2019 should in future be known as \u2018honest comment\u2019.[67]<\/a>
\nAccording Scott LJ<\/strong> in Lyon v Daily Telegraph[68]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
\n\u2018the right of \u201cfair comment\u201d\u2026
\nis one of the fundamental rights of free speech and writing which are so dear
\nto the British nation.[69]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

Additionally,
\nthe defence of publication on a matter of public interest[70]<\/a>
\nand builds on a previous defence, which was called the Reynolds defence after
\nthe case of Reynolds v Times Newspaper<\/strong>.
\nIt has the same purpose as the Reynolds defence, which is to protect the media
\nwhen they report matters of public interest in a responsible manner. In Flood v Times Newspaper Ltd[71]<\/strong><\/a>,
\nLord Phillips<\/strong>, with
\nwhom Lord Mance<\/strong> agreed, expressed
\nsupport for Lady Hale\u2019s formulation in Jameel\u2019s
\ncase<\/strong> that the Reynolds defence sprang from \u2018the general obligation of the
\npress, media and other publishers to communicate important information on
\nmatters of public interest and the general right of the public to receive such information.\u2019[72]<\/a><\/p>\n

Moving
\non to the defence of privilege which are available in two forms; absolute
\nprivilege and qualified privilege.[73]<\/a>
\nIt essentially allows people to speak without fear of defamation proceedings in
\ncircumstances whereby freedom of speech is utmost important.[74]<\/a>
\nAn absolute privilege is a privilege that cannot be lost because of the bad
\nmotives of the party asserting the privilege.[75]<\/a>
\nIn other words, an absolute privilege is effective no matter what the
\ndefendant\u2019s motive is.[76]<\/a>
\nIn Hamilton v Al Fayed<\/strong>[77]<\/a>,
\nit was held that absolute privilege is a stronger form of privilege because it
\nprovides the defendant with an absolute defence where freedom of speech is of
\nthe essence, such as is the case of the parliament.[78]<\/a>
\nSection 13 of the Defamation Act 1996<\/strong>
\nalso provides absolute privilege for reports and papers ordered to be published
\nby either house of Parliament, judicial proceedings, fair and accurate
\ncontemporaneous reports of United Kingdom court proceedings[79]<\/a>
\nand also for communication between the higher officials of the state as per the
\ncase of Chatterton v Secretary of State
\nfor India<\/strong>[80]<\/a>.[81]<\/a>
\nA qualified privilege on the other hand arises where the need for such freedom
\nis not quite so great but nevertheless warrants some protection from the threat
\nof litigation that is not allowed on non-privileged occasions.[82]<\/a>
\nIt is a weaker form of privilege because it is only available as a defence
\nwhere it is felt that freedom of expression should be protected but not where
\nthe writer is incited by malice. Horrocks
\nv Lowe[83]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>
\nprovides an illustration of the approach to honesty and the effects of \u2018malice\u2019.[84]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

5.0 REYNOLDS DEFENCE  <\/h2>\n

The
\nlaw regarding qualified privilege made a quantum leap with the decision in Reynolds v Times Newspaper<\/strong>. The case
\ninvolved allegedly defamatory statements contained in an article published in
\nBritain regarding the resignation of the Irish Prime Minister, Albert Reynolds,
\nfollowing a political scandal.[85]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

The
\nclaimant was the Prime Minister of Ireland and a few days after he resigned the
\nSunday Times published an article with the headline \u2018Goodbye gombeen man\u2019 with
\nthe sub-heading \u2018Why a fib too far proved fatal for the political career of
\nIreland\u2019s peacemaker and Mr Fixit\u2019.[86]<\/a>
\nIt was held that the existing protection provided by the defences of privilege
\nand honest comment was adequate when dealing with matters of public interest
\nand it would be wrong to single out political debate from other matters of
\npublic importance.[87]<\/a>
\nThe main issue in this case was whether or not the courts should recognise a
\ngeneric qualified privilege encompassing the publication by a newspaper of
\npolitical matters affecting the people of the United Kingdom.[88]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

Lord Nicholls<\/strong>, upheld Lord Bingham\u2019s judgement
\nin the Court of Appeal(COA), adding to it a list of ten criteria\u2019s which
\nindicates how the defence of qualified privilege should be judged upon.[89]<\/a><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The
    \nseriousness of the allegation; the more serious the charge, the more the public
    \nis misinformed and the individual is harmed, if the allegation is not true.    [90]<\/a> <\/li>\n
  2. Nature
    \nof the information and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of
    \npublic concern.    [91]<\/a>\n<\/li>\n
  3. The
    \nsource of information; as some informants have no direct knowledge of the
    \nevents and some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid for their
    \nstories.    [92]<\/a>\n<\/li>\n
  4. The
    \nsteps taken to verify the information.    [93]<\/a> <\/li>\n
  5. The
    \nstatus of the information; the allegation may have already been the subject of
    \nan investigation which commands respect.    [94]<\/a> <\/li>\n
  6. The
    \nurgency of the matter; news is often a perishable commodity.    [95]<\/a> <\/li>\n
  7. Whether
    \ncomment was sought from the claimant, he may have information others do not
    \npossess or have not disclosed. However, an approach to the claimant will not
    \nalways be necessary.     [96]<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Whether
    \nthe article contained the gist of the plaintiff\u2019s side of the story.    [97]<\/a> <\/li>\n
  9. The
    \ntone of the article is equally important. A newspaper can raise queries or call
    \nfor an investigation. It need not adopt allegations as statements of fact.    [98]<\/a> <\/li>\n
  10. The circumstance of the
    \npublication which also includes the timing. <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This
    \nlist is non exhaustive and may vary from case to case.    [99]<\/a>
    \nIn general, a newspaper\u2019s unwillingness to disclose the identity of its sources
    \nshould not weigh against it.    [100]<\/a>
    \nAbove all, court should have particular regard to the importance of freedom of
    \nexpression. The press discharges vital functions as a bloodhound as well as a
    \nwatchdog.    [101]<\/a><\/p>\n

    This
    \ntest established by Lord Nicholls<\/strong>
    \nthen became the \u2018Reynolds test\u2019. This test balances the public interest on the
    \nfreedom of speech against the public\u2019s interest in not being misinformed by the
    \nmedia on important factual issues. This test effectively directs the court to
    \nfocus on whether, in all circumstances, the publication of the defamatory
    \nmaterial was \u2018responsible\u2019, rather than simply whether the factual assertion
    \nwas accurate. <\/p>\n

    The
    \nimportance of the availability of the Reynolds privilege defence is of course
    \nthat the publication by a journalist of a statement that is false or turns out
    \nto be false is nevertheless protected so long as he acted responsibly.    [102]<\/a>
    \n <\/p>\n

    However,
    \nwhile the Reynolds defence intended to give greater protection to freedom of  speech, it has been construed strictly, thus
    \nleading to criticism that in effect it was nothing more than a series of high
    \ndifficulties over which the media must clamber towards the distant defence of
    \nprivilege.    [103]<\/a> It
    \nwas criticised by Clayton and Tomlinson
    \nin \u2018The Law of Human Rights\u2019<\/strong> on two grounds; firstly, it was said to have not provided a full
    \nrecognition of the species of \u2018qualified privilege\u2019, developed by the
    \nConvention jurisprudence described as a \u2018safeguard to journalists\u2019 when
    \n\u2018matters of legitimate public concern\u2019 are being discussed by the press.    [104]<\/a>
    \nSecondly, they argued that it had left the law of defamation in a state of
    \nuncertainty in relation to media discussion of matters of public interest.    [105]<\/a><\/p>\n

    6.0 POST-REYNOLDS<\/h2>\n

     In addition, Reynolds v Times Newspaper<\/strong> caused quite a stir when it was handed
    \ndown. In 2001, the case of Loutchansky v
    \nTimes Newspaper Ltd    [106]<\/strong><\/a>
    \n<\/strong>the COA described the defence as a new legal doctrine, which was wholly
    \ndifferent from traditional qualified privilege based on the duty test.    [107]<\/a>
    \nLord Hoffmann<\/strong> in this case concluded
    \nthat it might more appropriately be called the Reynolds public interest defence
    \nrather than privilege, and consequently that the traditional duty test would
    \nnot have to be rigorously satisfied in order for the Reynolds defence to apply.    [108]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Moving on to the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe[109]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
    \nwhere the Reynolds defence failed, it was which alleged that the United States
    \nwere monitoring the bank accounts of a Saudi Arabian businessman to ensure he
    \nwas not funding terrorists.    [110]<\/a> Lord Hoffmann<\/strong> in this casestated that Reynolds privilege was a
    \nbeneficial defence; that it should not be applied strictly; and that the
    \nindicia of \u201cresponsible journalism\u201d were not mandatory obstacles to be
    \novercome.    [111]<\/a>
    \n In this particular case the House of
    \nLords (HOL) sent a strong signal that the direction of travel post-Reynolds had
    \nnot been sufficiently in favour of press freedom.    [112]<\/a>  Lord
    \nHoffmann<\/strong> and Baroness Hale<\/strong> were
    \nready to drop the reference to a \u2018privilege\u2019 and admit that Reynolds really
    \ncreated a new public interest defence, they were also critical of the way the
    \nlower courts failed to recognize the revolutionary spirit of Reynolds.    [113]<\/a> Charman v Orion<\/strong>[114]<\/a> is a
    \nuseful indication that the Reynolds defence does not only extend to newspapers
    \nand similar highbrow publications.    [115]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Reynolds defence was also considered in Flood v Times Newspaper Ltd<\/strong>[116]<\/a> in
    \nrespect of an article headed: \u2018Detective accused of taking bribes from Russian
    \nexiles\u2019 which named Detective Sergeant Flood as 
    \na senior officer whom police were investigating for accepting bribes in
    \nexchanged for confidential police information.    [117]<\/a> When
    \nFlood sued for libel, the high court found that the publication of the article
    \nin Times and on its website was under Reynolds qualified privilege.    [118]<\/a>
    \nHowever, the COA were of the view that because the steps taken to verify were
    \ninadequate, the defendant had not acted responsibly and was not therefore
    \nprotected by Reynolds privilege.    [119]<\/a> In the
    \ncontext of human rights, Lord Neuberger
    \nMR<\/strong> said that the fair balancing of Article 8 and Article 10    [120]<\/a> would
    \nnormally require that such allegations should only be freely publishable if to
    \ndo so in the public interest and the journalist has taken reasonable steps to
    \ncheck their accuracy.    [121]<\/a> This
    \nindicates a step forward to protect the media. <\/p>\n

    7.0 DEFAMATION ACT 2013<\/h2>\n

    In 2014, the Defamation Act 2013<\/strong> came into force whereby it seeks to rebalance
    \nthe law of defamation    [122]<\/a> by ensuring
    \neffective protection from freedom of speech, whilst preserving the defamed
    \nindividual\u2019s right to protect his or her reputation.    [123]<\/a> In
    \naddition, this Act also seeks to curb London being seen as the preferred
    \ndestination for libel tourism.    [124]<\/a> <\/p>\n

    The introduction of this new Act brought
    \nabout several changes to the way the law of defamation is handled in the UK. Initially,
    \nit was observed that the burden of proof for defamation was to show that the
    \npublic\u2019s estimation of the claimant would be lowered as a result of the statement.    [125]<\/a> Section
    \n1 of the Act attempts to discourage trivial claims by introducing a new
    \nthreshold test    [126]<\/a> which
    \nprovides that claimants will have to show that they have suffered \u201cserious
    \nharm\u201d to their reputation before suing.    [127]<\/a> In
    \ncase of a corporation, the corporation entities wishing to sue will need to
    \nprove that the statement has caused, or is likely to cause, \u2018serious financial
    \nloss\u2019.    [128]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

    A major development in the defamation law in
    \nthe UK has been the change in defences available to those who are claimed
    \nagainst. Section 2    [129]<\/a> creates
    \na new defence of \u201ctruth\u201d, which replaces the defence of \u201cjustification\u201d.    [130]<\/a> This
    \nclause is intended broadly to reflect the current law while simplifying and
    \nclarifying certain elements.    [131]<\/a> This
    \nreflects the current law as established in the case of Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd    [132]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>,
    \nwhere the COA indicated that in order for the defence of justification to be
    \navailable the defendant does not have to prove that every word he or she
    \npublished was true; he or she has to establish the \u2018essential\u2019 or \u2018substantial\u2019
    \ntruth of the sing of libel\u2019.    [133]<\/a><\/p>\n

    In addition, section 3[134]<\/a>
    \nintroduces the defence of honest opinion, which replaces the fair comment
    \ndefence.    [135]<\/a>
    \nA defendant will have to satisfy the following three conditions in order to
    \nrely on the defence of honest opinion; 
    \nfirst is that the statement must be an expression of opinion and not an
    \nassertion of fact.    [136]<\/a> This
    \nis aimed to reflect the law as established in Cheng v Tse Wai Chun Paul    [137]<\/strong><\/a>
    \n<\/strong>that the statement must be recognisable as comment is distinct from an imputation
    \nof fact.    [138]<\/a>
    \nThe statement must indicate the basis of the opinion.    [139]<\/a> This reflects
    \nthe test approved in Joseph v Spiller    [140]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>
    \nthat \u201cthe comment must explicitly or implicitly indicate at least in general
    \nterms the facts on which it is based\u201d.    [141]<\/a> and
    \nthat the opinion must be one that an honest person could have held on the basis
    \nof a fact which existed at the time the statement was published or before the a
    \nprivileged statement published before the statement in question.    [142]<\/a>
    \nSection 4    [143]<\/a>
    \nbrings about a new defence in particular for publishers who reasonably believe
    \nthat it is in the public interest.    [144]<\/a> <\/p>\n

    ave regard  liges the court ‘o  of speech, which in turn obliges the corut to
    \n‘. s of a fact which existed at the time the stat This defence brings
    \nabout a major change replacing the existing Reynolds defence.    [145]<\/a> It
    \nalso seeks to strengthen freedom of speech, which in turn obliges the court to
    \n\u201chave regard to all the circumstances of the case\u201d and to \u201cmake such allowance
    \nfor editorial judgement as it considers appropriate\u201d in deciding whether or not
    \na publication was made in the public interest.    [146]<\/a> <\/p>\n

    Besides, section 5[147]<\/a>
    \ncreates a new defence whereby an action for defamation is brought against the
    \noperator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.    [148]<\/a>  However, under section 5(3)[149]<\/a>, the
    \ndefence will be defeated if it was not possible for the claimant to identify
    \nthe poster of the statement, the claimant gave the operator notice of their
    \ncomplaint in relation to the statement, and the operator failed to respond to
    \nthe notice in accordance with any provision contained in regulations. Besides,
    \nthe defence will also be defeated if the operator of the website had acted with
    \nmalice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned.    [150]<\/a> Section
    \n6    [151]<\/a> creates
    \nanother new defence to protect scientists and academics publishing in
    \npeer-reviewed journals and the publication of a statement in such a journal is
    \nprivileged, as long as certain conditions are met.    [152]<\/a> Simon Singh v British Chiropractic
    \nAssociation<\/strong>    [153]<\/a>
    \nbrought to light the problems that arise when lone scientist contribute to
    \npublic interest debates.    [154]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Section 7[155]<\/a>
    \nessentially extends the circumstances in which the existing defences of
    \nabsolute and qualified privilege can be used.    [156]<\/a> A
    \npress conference was protected as it was considered under the common law as a
    \npublic meeting pursuant to the existing law set down in McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspapers Ltd<\/strong>    [157]<\/a>.[158]<\/a> Section
    \n8    [159]<\/a>
    \nintroduces a single publication rule, this is aimed to reduce the number of
    \nlibel actions brought in respect of historic publications.    [160]<\/a> This new
    \nAct establishes a rule preventing claimants from bringing an action in relation
    \nto publication of the same material by the same publisher after the expiry of
    \nthe one-year limitation period, unless the manner of the publication is
    \nmaterially different.    [161]<\/a> <\/p>\n

    Libel
    \ntourism is address in section 9    [162]<\/a>.[163]<\/a>
    \nThere is a new test for acceptance of jurisdiction in defamation and it only
    \napplies when a defamation action is brought against a person who is not
    \ndomiciled in the UK, and EU member state or a state which is a party to Lugano Convention<\/strong>.    [164]<\/a>
    \nThis Act states that a court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine
    \nand action unless the court is satisfied that of all the places in which the
    \nstatement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the
    \nmost appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement.    [165]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

    It
    \nis submitted that the enactment of this Act is a step forward towards achieving a nation with the
    \nability to have freedom of speech. The positive impact to it is having claimants
    \nprove that they have suffered serious harm as a result of the comment, this will
    \ninevitably lead to fewer cases being brought to courts as it would be more
    \ndifficult to prove.    [166]<\/a>
    \nMoreover, the new law regarding operators of websites is shows good progression
    \nof the law as it updates the current state of the internet. This in turn allows
    \nfor increased protection of the website operator if they did not make a certain
    \ncomment in regard to the case.    [167]<\/a>
    \nThe defence of \u2018matters of public interest\u2019 is somewhat easier to use for
    \npublishers as they only need to prove that they thought it was reasonable to
    \npublish the comments in the matter of public interest and thus no additional
    \nburden of proof is required unlike in the previous Reynolds defence.    [168]<\/a>
    \nIt was held that there was lack of certainty in the application of the Reynolds
    \ndefence outside the context of mainstream journalism thus creating a chilling
    \neffect on the freedom of expression and reporting.    [169]<\/a>
    \nHence, the Defamation Act 2013 is said to be a very useful to create a fair
    \nbalance between freedom of expression and the right to a good reputation.    [170]<\/a><\/p>\n

    Nonetheless,
    \nTimothy Pinto criticised the Act by stating that companies are likely to find
    \nit difficult to succeed if they have been defamed. Moreover, he wrote that the
    \nact is \u2018a boost for free speech\u2019 because of the new requirement of proving harm
    \nand the numerous statutory defences.    [171]<\/a> These
    \nchanges, in his view, will work against the claimant and against the right to a
    \ngood reputation.    [172]<\/a>
    \nHowever, it is safe to say that the Defamation Act 2013 has modernised the law by
    \nimposing statutory solutions but also by leaving the text open to
    \ninterpretation. The 2013 Act recognises the importance of the judiciary\u2019s
    \ndiscretion in the implementation of the law on a case-by-case basis. To
    \nsummarise, the Defamation Act 2013 is an important piece of legislation which
    \nfills the gaps of the old law and provides a modern basis for further
    \ndevelopments. Whether the Act will work in favour of freedom of expression, or
    \nin favour of a fair balance is yet to be seen within the case law.    [173]<\/a><\/p>\n

    8.0 BALANCE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PROTECTION OF REPUTATION <\/h2>\n

    For decades, it has been argued that the
    \ncourts have failed to strike a balance between the human right to freedom of
    \nspeech and the right to protect one\u2019s reputation. It is known that reputation
    \nitself is not protected under the Convention, but is certainly protected under
    \nEnglish law    [174]<\/a>
    \nand freedom of speech is a fundamental right    [175]<\/a>.[176]<\/a> The Universal
    \nDeclaration of Human Rights (UDHR) described freedom of speech as \u2018the highest
    \naspiration of the common people\u2019.    [177]<\/a>  Finkelstein in Report of the
    \nIndependent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation <\/strong>said that free
    \nspeech protects the right of all persons to participate in the democratic
    \nprocess.    [178]<\/a>
    \nIt is submitted that freedom of speech is more if not just as equivalent as it
    \nis to protect one\u2019s reputation. <\/p>\n

    Consequently, the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998
    \ngives British citizens the right to freedom of speech as set out in Article 10
    \nof the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which states that everyone
    \nhas the right to freedom of expression    [179]<\/a>.[180]<\/a> It is
    \ngenerally believed that the courts tend to protect freedom of expression to a
    \ngreater degree than a person\u2019s reputation.    [181]<\/a> For
    \nexample, in the case of O\u2019Shea v Mirror
    \nGroup Newspapers Ltd    [182]<\/strong><\/a><\/strong>
    \n, Morland J <\/strong>held that the conclusion
    \ncould not stand in the face of Article 10 ECHR as it would impose an impossible
    \nburden on a publisher if he were required to check if the true picture
    \nresembled someone else who because of the content of the picture was defamed.    [183]<\/a> Amongst
    \nother articles that protect freedom of speech are contained in Article 19 of
    \nthe UDHR which states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
    \nexpression    [184]<\/a>.[185]<\/a> <\/p>\n

    The UN Human Rights Committee heavily
    \ncriticised English libel law because it discourages \u201ccritical media reporting
    \non matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of
    \nscholars and journalists to publish their work\u201d.    [186]<\/a> It is
    \nvital that a free and independent press performs the role of a \u201cwatchdog of
    \nsociety which reports on issues of public interest and ensures accountability
    \nof the state. Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
    \nRights (ICCPR) elaborates on many rights included in the UDHR especially on
    \nfreedom of expression.    [187]<\/a>
    \nArticle 19 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of expression in terms
    \nwhich are very similar to those found in Article 19 of the UDHR.    [188]<\/a> Over the years,
    \nconcerns have been expressed that the English law of defamation is too harsh in
    \nits operation and that it costs too much to defend a claim even when a good
    \ndefence is available.    [189]<\/a>
    \nAs the result, it unduly interferes with the reporting of the news by the media
    \nand act as a shield.    [190]<\/a>
    \nNevertheless, with the HRA 1998 which requires the courts in appropriate cases regard
    \nthe right to free speech in the ECHR serve to redress the balance as may the
    \nspecific reforms effected by the Defamation Act 2013.    [191]<\/a><\/p>\n

    9.0 COMPARISON BETWEEN USA AND UK LIBEL LAWS<\/h2>\n

    According to Robert Balin<\/strong>, libel laws in the US and England constitute a mirror
    \nimage of each other with the burden of proof placed on the claimant in the US
    \nbut on the media defendant in the UK.    [192]<\/a>
    \nHowever, their different approaches stem from the basis of how they balance the
    \nright of freedom of speech against the right to protection of reputation. America
    \nfavours protecting free speech whilst England favour protecting reputation.    [193]<\/a> The
    \nAmerican approach is basically governed by the First Amendment of the United
    \nStates which dictates that \u2018Congress shall make no law\u2026. abridging the freedom
    \nof speech or of the press\u2019.    [194]<\/a> Nonetheless,
    \nthe American approach to libel went through a change with the decision in the
    \nlandmark case of New York Times v
    \nSullivan<\/strong>    [195]<\/a>
    \nwhich Justice Brennan determined that \u2018libel can claim no talismanic immunity
    \nfrom constitutional limitations\u2019.    [196]<\/a> <\/p>\n

    American
    \nlibel law by placing the burden of proof on the claimant, rather than presuming
    \ndefamation, like the English system does, means that free speech will not be
    \noverly ‘chilled’. Moreover, the single publication rule the American Courts
    \nhave imposed upon internet libel is much fairer than the English multiple
    \npublication rule, as it is unreasonable to make someone account for every
    \nso-called publication of their article on the internet, when the propagation of
    \ninformation via this medium is virtually impossible to control. This difficulty
    \nin controlling information on the internet is also one reason it is best to
    \nagain follow the American approach. This higher threshold demanded in American
    \nlibel actions may seem excessively protective of free speech at the expense of
    \nreputations, but really it has struck the best balance possible, and in so
    \ndoing avoided the ridiculous situation of libel tourism, which England is now
    \nconfronted with. Although the common law elements of defamation claims are very
    \nsimilar in both countries, but the Constitutional protection of speech in the
    \nUS has allowed defendants in American courts to be much more successful in
    \ndefending defamation claims.    [197]<\/a><\/p>\n

    10.0 CONCLUSION<\/h2>\n

    The Defamation Act 2013 serves to give
    \nout a strong message to loosen the ends of freedom of speech for the media to
    \npublish statements which they think is relevant or significant. This Act does
    \nnot completely sacrifice the right to reputation but it strengthens the right
    \nto freedom of speech for individuals and the press in UK. This inevitably
    \nprotects the role of the media.<\/p>\n

    David S Ardia<\/strong> in Reputation in a Networked World: Revisiting
    \nthe Social Foundations of Defamation Law <\/strong>stated \u201c…Given that defamation
    \nlaw serves so many important functions, one would expect that it has evolved
    \nalong with our networked society. But, alas, defamation law looks today much as
    \nit did in 1964, when the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in New
    \nYork Times v Sullivan<\/strong>, or even 1764, when colonial Americans began to
    \ntinker with the common law\u2019s English roots.    [198]<\/a>
    \nDefamation law remains perplexed with minute and barren distinctions, filled
    \nwith technicalities and traps for the unwary and riddled with anomalies and
    \nabsurdities.\u201d    [199]<\/a><\/p>\n

    It is to be noted that British
    \ndefamation law causes a severe chilling effect on speech in America. The fear
    \nof violating British law may cause media outlets in America to edit the content of their stories. A solution therefore
    \nmust be found in such a way that it would involve a balance between the freedom
    \nof speech in America and the right to protect themselves from defamatory
    \nstatements. In a dispute between two nations that value basic freedoms, any
    \nsolution should stumble on the side of protection of freedom of speech, the
    \nmost important fundamental right that any nation celebrates.<\/p>\n

    In addition, the introduction of the
    \nserious harm makes it more difficult for an individual to bring a claim in
    \ndefamation, therefore giving individuals more flexibility to exercise their
    \nright to free speech. However, the Act will not go as far as to implement
    \nnon-liability approach to defamation as it is important to attach a reasonable
    \nrestraint when it comes to the exercise of free speech as it is also important
    \nto protect the reputations of members of society as well as corporate bodies. It
    \nis difficult to predict the future of defamation law however it is safe to
    \nassume that the media will continue to lobby for a relaxation of the libel
    \nlaws, particularly in the area of qualified privilege.    [200]<\/a> In
    \nconclusion, the right to free speech is not extensively limited or crippled by
    \ndefamation laws in the UK but rather an acceptable balance has been reached or
    \nis being reached between the right to free speech and the need to protect the
    \nright to reputation.<\/p>\n

    BIBLOGRAPHY<\/h2>\n

    Cases <\/h3>\n

    Reynolds v The Times Newspaper [2001]
    \n2 AC 127; [1999] 3 WLR 1010; [2000] EMLR 1; [1999] 4 All ER 609 <\/p>\n

    Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2005]
    \nEWCA Civ 74; [2005] QB 904; [2005] 2 WLR 1577; [2005] EMLR 377; [2005] 4 All ER
    \n356<\/p>\n

    Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894]
    \n1 QB 671<\/p>\n

    Youssopoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd
    \n[1934] 50 TLR 581<\/p>\n

    Forrester v Tyrrell [1893] 9 TLR 257<\/p>\n

    Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome [1972] 2 WLR
    \n645<\/p>\n

    Sim v Stretch [1936] 52 TLR 669<\/p>\n

    Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008<\/p>\n

    Knuppfer v London Express [1994] AC 116,122<\/p>\n

    Bourke v Warren [1826] 2 C P 307<\/p>\n

    E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20<\/p>\n

    Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd
    \n[1940] 1 KB 377<\/p>\n

    Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32<\/p>\n

    Wennhak v Morgan [1888]
    \n20 QBD 635<\/p>\n

    Slipper v BBC [1991] 1 QB 671<\/p>\n

    Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1998] 4 All
    \nER 155<\/p>\n

    Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53<\/p>\n

    Lyon v Daily Telegraph [2001] 2 AC
    \n127; [1999] 3 WLR 1010; [2000] EMLR 1; [1999] 4 All ER 609<\/p>\n

    Flood v Times Newspaper Ltd [2012] UKSC 11<\/p>\n

    Hamilton v Al Fayed [2006]
    \nUKHL 44; [2007] 1 AC 359; [2006] 3 WLR 642; [2006] 4 All ER 1279; [2007] EMLR
    \n14<\/p>\n

    Chatterton v Secretary of State for India [1895] 2 QB 189<\/p>\n

    Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135, [1974] 1 All ER 662<\/p>\n

    Loutchansky v Times Newspaper Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1805;
    \n[2002] QB 783; [2002] 2 WLR 640; [2002] 1 All ER 652; [2002] EMLR 241<\/p>\n

    Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44<\/a><\/p>\n

    Charman v Orion [2007] EWCA Civ 972<\/p>\n

    Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002]
    \nEWCA Civ 1772, [2003] EMLR<\/p>\n

    Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53<\/p>\n

    Simon Singh v British Chiropractic
    \nAssociation [2010] EWCA Civ 350<\/p>\n

    McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspapers
    \nLtd [2001] 2 AC 277<\/p>\n

    O\u2019Shea v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd [2001]
    \nEMLR 943<\/p>\n

    Other Jurisdiction <\/h3>\n

    Cheng v Tse Wai Chun Paul [2001]
    \nEMLR 31 CFA <\/p>\n

    New York Times v Sullivan 376
    \nU.S. 254 [1964]<\/p>\n

    Legislation <\/h3>\n

    Defamation Act 1996<\/p>\n

    Broadcasting Act 1990<\/p>\n

    Theatres Act 1968<\/p>\n

    Defamation Act
    \n2013        <\/p>\n

    Official Materials <\/h3>\n

    Ministry of Justice, ‘Draft
    \nDefamation Bill’ (2011)<\/p>\n

    ‘House of Lords – Social Media And Criminal Offences – Communications
    \nCommittee’ (Publications.parliament.uk)
    \n<https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/ld201415\/ldselect\/ldcomuni\/37\/3704.htm>
    \naccessed 4 April 2017<\/p>\n

    House Of Commons – Press
    \nStandards, Privacy And Libel – Culture, Media And Sport Committee’ (Publications.parliament.uk<\/em>,
    \n2010)
    \n<https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm200910\/cmselect\/cmcumeds\/362\/36206.htm>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Explanatory Notes To Bills:
    \nDEFAMATION BILL’ (Publications.parliament.uk<\/em>)
    \n<https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/bills\/cbill\/2012-2013\/0005\/en\/13005en.htm>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    ‘Defamation Act 2013’ (Legislation.gov.uk<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2013\/26\/section\/4\/enacted> accessed
    \n20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Secondary Sources <\/h3>\n

    Books <\/h3>\n

    Keenan D, Smith &
    \nKeenan’s English Law<\/em> (14th edn, Pearson Education Limited 2004)<\/p>\n

    Lunney M and Oliphant K, Tort
    \nLaw: Text And Materials<\/em> (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2008)<\/p>\n

    Oughton D and Harvey B, Law
    \nOf Torts<\/em> (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2015)<\/p>\n

    Barnett H, Constitutional
    \n& Administrative Law<\/em> (10th edn, Routledge 2017)<\/p>\n

    Harvey B and Marston J, Cases
    \nAnd Commentary On Tort<\/em> (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2009)<\/p>\n

    Howarth D and
    \nothers, Hepple And Matthews’ Tort Law: Cases And Materials<\/em> (7th
    \nedn, Bloomsbury)<\/p>\n

    Turner C, Unlocking Torts<\/em> (4th
    \nedn, Routledge 2014)<\/p>\n

    Turner C and Hodge S, Unlocking
    \nTorts<\/em> (3rd edn, Routledge 2013)<\/p>\n

    van Dam C, European Tort
    \nLaw<\/em> (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2013)<\/p>\n

    Welsh T, Greenwood W and Banks
    \nD, Mcnae’s Essential Law For Journalists<\/em> (19th edn, Oxford
    \nUniversity Press 2007)<\/p>\n

    P. Statsky W, Essentials
    \nOf Torts<\/em> (2nd edn, West Legal Studies 2001)<\/p>\n

    Wright J, Tort Law And
    \nHuman Rights<\/em> (2nd edn, Hart Publishing 2017)<\/p>\n

    Kidner R, Casebook On Torts<\/em> (12th
    \nedn, Oxford University Press 2012)<\/p>\n

    Strong S I and Williams L, Complete
    \ntort law: Text, cases, & materials<\/em> (2nd edition, OUP Oxford.
    \nCopyright. 2011)<\/p>\n

    Harpwood V, Modern Tort Law<\/em> (6th
    \nedn, Cavendish Publishing 2005)<\/p>\n

    Lunney M and Oliphant K, Tort law: Text and
    \nmaterials<\/em> (5th edition, Oxford University press 2013)<\/p>\n

    Mulheron R, Principles of
    \ntort law<\/em> (Cambridge University Press 2016)<\/p>\n

    Bermingham V and Brennan C, Tort
    \nlaw directions<\/em> (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2016)<\/p>\n

    Deakin S F, Johnston A, and
    \nMarkesinis B, Markesinis and Deakin\u2019s tort law<\/em> (7th edition,
    \nOUP Oxford 2012)<\/p>\n

    Smartt U, Media law for journalists<\/em> (SAGE
    \n2006) <\/p>\n

    Witting C, Street on torts<\/em> (14th
    \nedition, Oxford University Press 2015) <\/p>\n

    Turner C and Hodge S, Unlocking
    \nTorts<\/em> (3rd edn, Routledge 2013)<\/p>\n

    Welsh T, Greenwood W and Banks
    \nD, Mcnae’s Essential Law For Journalists<\/em> (19th edn, Oxford
    \nUniversity Press 2007)<\/p>\n

    Horsey K and Rackley E, Kidner\u2019s Casebook on Torts (13th<\/sup>
    \nedition Oxford University Press, 2015)<\/p>\n

    Bermingham V and Brennan C, Tort
    \nLaw Directions<\/em> (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2012)<\/p>\n

    Mullis A and Oliphant K, Torts<\/em> (1st
    \nedn, Palgrave Macmillan 2011)<\/p>\n

    Smartt U, Media &
    \nEntertainment Law<\/em> (2nd edn, Routledge 2014)<\/p>\n

    Steele J, Tort Law: Text,
    \nCases, And Materials<\/em> (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010)<\/p>\n

    Bermingham V and Brennan C, Tort
    \nLaw Directions<\/em> (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2014)<\/p>\n

    Melkonian H, Defamation,
    \nLibel Tourism And The SPEECH Act Of 2010<\/em> (1st edn, Cambria Press 2011<\/p>\n

    Scaife L, Handbook Of
    \nSocial Media And The Law<\/em> (1st edn, Infroma law from Routledge 2015)<\/p>\n

    Bhachu P and Zarouni Y A, Tort
    \nLaw: A Revision Guide For Law Students<\/em> (1st edn, Yousif Al Zarouni
    \n2016)<\/p>\n

    Morsink J, The Universal
    \nDeclaration Of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, And Intent<\/em> (1st edn,
    \nUniversity of Pennsylvania Press 1999)<\/p>\n

    Roach L, Card And James’
    \nBusiness Law<\/em> (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2014)<\/p>\n

    Parker R A, Free Speech On
    \nTrial: Communication Perspectives On Landmark Supreme Court Decisions<\/em> (1st
    \nedn, The University Of Alabama Press 2003)<\/p>\n

    J. Goldman A and D. Sigismond W, Cengage Advantage Books:
    \nBusiness Law: Principles And Practices<\/em> (1st edn, South-Western Cengage
    \nLearning 2014)<\/p>\n

    Journal Articles <\/h3>\n

    Krishnan S, ‘Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill: Striking A Balance?’ (2012)
    \n23 Ent. L. R.<\/p>\n

    Cox N, ‘The Future Of The Reynolds Defence In Irish Defamation Law
    \nFollowing The Defamation Act 2009.’ (2014) 51 Irish Jurist<\/p>\n

    Low K, ‘Reynolds Privilege Transformed’ (2014) 130 L.Q.R.<\/p>\n

    Rolph D, ‘A Critique Of The Defamation Act 2013: Lessons For And From
    \nAustralian Defamation Law Reform’ (2016) 21 Comms. L.<\/p>\n

    Hooper D, ‘How The Court Will Interpret Whether England Is The Most
    \nAppropriate Place To Bring A Libel Action’ (2016) 27 Ent. L. R.<\/p>\n

    Coe P, ‘The Value Of Corporate Reputation And The Defamation Act 2013: A
    \nBrave New World Or Road To Ruin?’ (2013) 18 Comms. L.<\/p>\n

    Coors C, ‘Opinion Or Defamation? Limits Of Free Speech In Online
    \nCustomer Reviews In The Digital Era’ (2015) 20 Comms. L.<\/p>\n

    Schilling K, ‘The Americanisation Of English Libel Laws’ (2000) 11 Ent.
    \nL. R.<\/p>\n

    Socha M, ‘Double Standard: A
    \nComparison Of British And American Defamation Law’ (2004) 23 Penn State
    \nInternational Law Review <http:\/\/elibrary.law.psu.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1637&context=psilr>
    \naccessed 4 April 2017<\/p>\n

    Kitching J, ‘English Defamation
    \nLaw \u2013 The Requirement For “Serious Harm” And Other Important Changes
    \nImpacting The Protection Of Your Reputation’ | Lexology’ (Lexology.com<\/em>,
    \n2014) <http:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=6cd0e337-604f-43e9-9a82-2e667d6731d1>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    News Articles <\/strong><\/p>\n

    Magrath P, ‘Law Report: `Hideously
    \nUgly’ Tag Could Be Defamatory’ (The Independent<\/em>, 1996) <http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/news\/people\/law-report-hideously-ugly-tag-could-be-defamatory-5597940.html>
    \naccessed 4 April 2017<\/p>\n

    Rozenberg J, ‘Ten-Point Test Of
    \nResponsible Journalism’ (Telegraph.co.uk<\/em>, 2004)
    \n<http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/uknews\/1476714\/Ten-point-test-of-responsible-journalism.html>
    \naccessed 8 April 2017<\/p>\n

    ‘Defamation act 2013 aims to
    \nimprove libel laws’ (BBC 31 December
    \n2013) <http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-25551640> accessed 14 January
    \n2017<\/p>\n

    Bowcott O, ‘Times Libel Ruling
    \nRestores Reynolds Public Interest Defence’ (The Guardian<\/em>, 2012)
    \n<https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2012\/mar\/21\/times-libel-reynolds-defence>
    \naccessed 18 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Singh S, ‘Simon Singh: It Is Too
    \nLate For Me, But Libel Laws Must Change For The Public Good’ The
    \nTelegraph<\/em> (2010)
    \n<http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/comment\/7294539\/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Adibe J, ‘Between Free Speech And
    \nProtection Of Reputation’ (Dailytrust.com.ng<\/em>, 2014)
    \n<https:\/\/www.dailytrust.com.ng\/daily\/columns\/thursday-columns\/36331-between-free-speech-and-protection-of-reputation>
    \naccessed 1 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    Websites <\/h3>\n

    Maverick S, ‘Defamation – Case
    \nLaw: Knupffer V London Express Newspaper’ (Mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk<\/em>,
    \n2007)
    \n<http:\/\/mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk\/2007\/01\/knupffer-v-london-express-newspaper.html>
    \naccessed 5 April 2017<\/p>\n

    Oxford University Press | Online
    \nResource Centre | Answers To End-Of-Chapter Questions’ (Global.oup.com<\/em>,
    \n2016)
    \n<http:\/\/global.oup.com\/uk\/orc\/law\/tort\/horsey_tort\/student\/answers_end\/ch17\/>
    \naccessed 6 April 2017<\/p>\n

    ‘Defamation – Case Law: Berkoff V
    \nBurchill’ (Mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk<\/em>, 2007)
    \n<http:\/\/mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk\/2007\/01\/berkoff-v-burchill.html>
    \naccessed 5 April 2017<\/p>\n

    Oxford University Press | Online
    \nResource Centre | Answers To End-Of-Chapter Questions’ (Global.oup.com<\/em>,
    \n2016) <http:\/\/global.oup.com\/uk\/orc\/law\/tort\/horsey_tort\/student\/answers_end\/ch17\/>
    \naccessed 6 April 2017<\/p>\n

    ‘What Are Some Defenses To
    \nDefamation? | Rottenstein Law Group LLP’ (Rotlaw.com<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.rotlaw.com\/legal-library\/what-are-some-defenses-to-defamation\/>
    \naccessed 6 April 2017<\/p>\n

    Dunlop R, ‘Article 10, The
    \nReynolds Test And The Rule In The Duke Of Brunswick\u2019S Case: The Decision In
    \nTimes Newspaper Ltd V The United Kingdom’ (39 Essex Street<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.39essex.co.uk\/docs\/articles\/RDL_Times_v_UK.pdf> accessed 8
    \nApril 2017<\/p>\n

    Taddia M, ‘The media, defamation and lawyers’ (11
    \nJanuary 2017)
    \n<https:\/\/www.lawgazette.co.uk\/law\/the-media-defamation-and-lawyers\/5054757.article>
    \naccessed 14 January 2017<\/p>\n

    ‘Defamation act 2013 aims to
    \nimprove libel laws’ (BBC 31 December 2013) <http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-25551640>
    \naccessed 14 January 2017<\/p>\n

    Ardia D. S, ‘Reputation in a
    \nNetworked world: Revisiting the social foundations of defamation law by David
    \nS. Ardia: SSRN’ (10 October 2010) <http:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=1689865>
    \naccessed 28 February 2017<\/p>\n

    inal
    \nactivites. iament, rather les accusing the claimant of being involved in
    \ninternational criminal activites. iament, rather <\/p>\n

    \u2018History of defamation’, (18
    \nOctober 2013) <https:\/\/englishlegalhistory.wordpress.com\/2013\/10\/18\/history-of-defamation\/>
    \naccessed 30 January 2017<\/p>\n

    413.nant
    \nand often written defamation is known as libel where else the impermenant and
    \noften spoken about is known as slander. <\/p>\n

    ‘What Are Some Defenses To
    \nDefamation? | Rottenstein Law Group LLP’ (Rotlaw.com<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.rotlaw.com\/legal-library\/what-are-some-defenses-to-defamation\/>
    \naccessed 6 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    Rozenberg J, ‘Ten-Point Test Of
    \nResponsible Journalism’ (Telegraph.co.uk<\/em>, 2004) <http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/uknews\/1476714\/Ten-point-test-of-responsible-journalism.html>
    \naccessed 8 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    ‘Media Law’ (Law Society
    \nGazette<\/em>, 2006)
    \n<https:\/\/www.lawgazette.co.uk\/law\/media-law\/4230.article> accessed 19
    \nMarch 2017.<\/p>\n

    Martin S, ‘The Defamation Act 2013:
    \nThe Emperor\u2019s New Clothes? – Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration – UK’ (Mondaq.com<\/em>,
    \n2013)
    \n<http:\/\/www.mondaq.com\/x\/282472\/Libel+Defamation\/The+Defamation+Act+2013+The+Emperors+New+Clothes>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Uphoff B and Schroder V, ‘The UK
    \nDefamation Act 2013 Comes Into Effect’ (The National Law Review<\/em>, 2014)
    \n<http:\/\/www.natlawreview.com\/article\/uk-defamation-act-2013-comes-effect>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Major 2014, ‘Major Changes to
    \nDefamation Law In The UK To Take Effect 1 January 2014 | White & Case LLP
    \nInternational Law Firm, Global Law Practice’ (Whitecase.com<\/em>, 2013) <https:\/\/www.whitecase.com\/publications\/article\/major-changes-defamation-law-uk-take-effect-1-january-2014>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Steele P, ‘Defamation Act 2013: A
    \nSensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>, 2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Scodie M, ‘Defamation In
    \nEmployment’ (2014)
    \n<http:\/\/www.bwbllp.com\/file\/bwb-empup-defamation-march14-pdf> accessed 20
    \nMarch 2017.<\/p>\n

    O’Kane O, ‘The Defamation Act 2013
    \nAnd Its Explanatory Notes – Insight Articles – News & Events – Carson
    \nMcdowell’ (Carson-mcdowell.com<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/www.carson-mcdowell.com\/news-and-events\/insights\/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Wilson I and Campbell M,
    \n‘Defamation Act 2013: A Summary And Overview \u2013 Iain Wilson And Max Campbell’ (Inforrm’s
    \nBlog<\/em>, 2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/21\/defamation-act-2013-a-summary-of-the-act-iain-wilson-and-max-campbell\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Pinto T, ‘Defamation Act 2013 \u2013 A
    \nBoost For Free Speech \u2013 Part 4: Single Publication Rule, Forum Shopping And
    \nJuries \u2013 Timothy Pinto’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2013\/05\/24\/defamation-act-2013-a-boost-for-free-speech-part-4-single-publication-rule-forum-shopping-and-juries-timothy-pinto\/>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Sadiq F, ‘Defamation Act 2013 \u2013
    \nWhat’s Changed?’ (The Student Lawyer<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/thestudentlawyer.com\/2013\/08\/19\/defamation-act-2013-whats-changed\/>
    \naccessed 22 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    ‘The Human Rights Act | Equality
    \nAnd Human Rights Commission’ (Equalityhumanrights.com<\/em>)
    \n<https:\/\/www.equalityhumanrights.com\/en\/human-rights\/human-rights-act>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    ‘International Guarantee \u00b7 What We
    \nDo \u00b7 Article 19’ (Article19<\/em>)
    \n<https:\/\/www.article19.org\/pages\/en\/international-guarantee.html>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    Mihaita A, ‘Defamation Act 2013:
    \nFree Speech Or Reputation? | North East Law Talk’ (Blogs.ncl.ac.uk<\/em>,
    \n2013) <https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelr\/2013\/06\/25\/defamation-act-2013-free-speech-or-reputation\/>
    \naccessed 10 April 2017<\/p>\n

    Trevelyan L, ‘Claimant-Friendly
    \nDefamation Laws Could Be About To Change’ (Law Society Gazette<\/em>, 2010)
    \n<https:\/\/www.lawgazette.co.uk\/analysis\/claimant-friendly-defamation-laws-could-be-about-to-change\/57665.article>
    \naccessed 13 April 2017<\/p>\n

    \n

    [1]<\/a> S. I. Strong
    \nand Liz Williams, Complete tort law: Text, cases, & materials<\/em> (2nd
    \nedition, OUP Oxford. Copyright. 2011) 346<\/p>\n

    [2]<\/a> ‘House of Lords – Social Media And
    \nCriminal Offences – Communications Committee’ (Publications.parliament.uk)
    \n<https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/ld201415\/ldselect\/ldcomuni\/37\/3704.htm>
    \naccessed 4 April 2017<\/p>\n

    [3]<\/a> Marialuisa Taddia, ‘The media, defamation and
    \nlawyers’ (11 January 2017) <https:\/\/www.lawgazette.co.uk\/law\/the-media-defamation-and-lawyers\/5054757.article>
    \naccessed 14 January 2017<\/p>\n

    [4]<\/a>  ‘Defamation act 2013 aims to
    \nimprove libel laws’ (BBC 31 December 2013) <http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-25551640>
    \naccessed 14 January 2017<\/p>\n

    [5]<\/a> [2001] 2 AC 127; [1999] 3 WLR
    \n1010; [2000] EMLR 1; [1999] 4 All ER 609 <\/p>\n

    [6]<\/a> [2005] EWCA Civ 74; [2005] QB 904;
    \n[2005] 2 WLR 1577; [2005] EMLR 377<\/p>\n

    [7]<\/a> \u2018History of defamation’, (18
    \nOctober 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/englishlegalhistory.wordpress.com\/2013\/10\/18\/history-of-defamation\/>
    \naccessed 30 January 2017<\/p>\n

    413.nant
    \nand often written defamation is known as libel where else the impermenant and
    \noften spoken about is known as slander. <\/p>\n

    [8]<\/a> John Hodgson and John
    \nLewthwaite, Tort law textbook<\/em> (OUP Oxford. Copyright. 2007)
    \n413<\/p>\n

    [9]<\/a> Arnold J. Goldman and William D.
    \nSigismond, Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law: Principles And
    \nPractices<\/em> (1st edn, South-Western Cengage Learning 2014) 83<\/p>\n

    [10]<\/a> Vivienne
    \nHarpwood, Modern Tort Law<\/em> (6th edn, Cavendish Publishing 2005) 371<\/p>\n

    [11]<\/a> Mark
    \nLunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort law: Text and materials<\/em> (5th
    \nedition, Oxford University press 2013) 687<\/p>\n

    [12]<\/a> Rachael Mulheron, Principles of tort law<\/em> (Cambridge
    \nUniversity Press 2016) 756<\/p>\n

    [13]<\/a>  [1894] 1 QB 671<\/p>\n

    [14]<\/a>
    \nMark Lunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort law: Text and materials<\/em> (5th
    \nedition, Oxford University press 2013) 687<\/p>\n

    [15]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [16]<\/a> s166 of the Broadcasting Act 1990<\/p>\n

    [17]<\/a> Vera Bermingham and Carol Brennan, Tort law directions<\/em> (5th
    \nedn, Oxford University Press 2016) 316<\/p>\n

    [18]<\/a> s4(1) of the Theatres Act 1968,<\/p>\n

    [19]<\/a> Simon F. Deakin, Angus Johnston, and Basil Markesinis, Markesinis
    \nand Deakin\u2019s tort law<\/em> (7th edition, OUP Oxford 2012) 637<\/p>\n

    [20]<\/a> [1934] 50 TLR 581<\/p>\n

    [21]<\/a> Ursula
    \nSmartt, Media law for journalists<\/em> (SAGE 2006) 164<\/p>\n

    [22]<\/a> Christian
    \nWitting, Street on torts<\/em> (14th edition, Oxford University
    \nPress 2015) 544<\/p>\n

    [23]<\/a>
    \nMark Lunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort law: Text and materials<\/em> (5th
    \nedition, Oxford University press 2013) 688<\/p>\n

    [24]<\/a> [1893] 9
    \nTLR 257<\/p>\n

    [25]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [26]<\/a> S. I. Strong and Liz Williams, Complete tort law: Text, cases,
    \n& materials<\/em> (2nd edition, OUP Oxford. Copyright. 2011) 359<\/p>\n

    [27]<\/a> Vera Bermingham and Carol Brennan, Tort law directions<\/em> (5th<\/sup> edition, Oxford
    \nUniversity Press 2016) 317<\/p>\n

    [28]<\/a>
    \n[1972] 2 WLR 645 <\/p>\n

    [29]<\/a> Chris Turner and Sue Hodge, Unlocking
    \nTorts<\/em> (3rd edn, Routledge 2013) 311<\/p>\n

    [30]<\/a> [1936] 52 TLR 669<\/p>\n

    [31]<\/a> Ibid 312<\/p>\n

    [32]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [33]<\/a> [1996] 4 All ER 1008<\/p>\n

    [34]<\/a> Barbara Harvey and John
    \nMarston, Cases And Commentary On Tort<\/em> (6th edn, Oxford
    \nUniversity Press 2009) 524<\/p>\n

    [35]<\/a> Paul Magrath, ‘Law Report:
    \n`Hideously Ugly’ Tag Could Be Defamatory’ (The Independent<\/em>, 1996)
    \n<http:\/\/www.independent.co.uk\/news\/people\/law-report-hideously-ugly-tag-could-be-defamatory-5597940.html>
    \naccessed 4 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [36]<\/a> ‘Defamation – Case Law: Berkoff V
    \nBurchill’ (Mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk<\/em>, 2007)
    \n<http:\/\/mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk\/2007\/01\/berkoff-v-burchill.html>
    \naccessed 5 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [37]<\/a> Chris Turner and Sue Hodge, Unlocking
    \nTorts<\/em> (3rd edn, Routledge 2013) 314 <\/p>\n

    [38]<\/a> Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and Basil
    \nMarkesinis, Markesinis And Deakin’s Tort Law<\/em> (7th edn, Oxford
    \nUniversity Press 2013) 645<\/p>\n

    [39]<\/a> [1944] AC 116,122<\/p>\n

    [40]<\/a>  ‘Defamation – Case Law:
    \nKnupffer V London Express Newspaper’ (Mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk<\/em>,
    \n2007) <http:\/\/mavrkydefamationcaselaw.blogspot.co.uk\/2007\/01\/knupffer-v-london-express-newspaper.html>
    \naccessed 5 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [41]<\/a> Chris Turner
    \nand Sue Hodge, Unlocking Torts<\/em> (3rd edn, Routledge 2013) 315<\/p>\n

    [42]<\/a> Ibid <\/p>\n

    [43]<\/a> [1826] 2 C P 307<\/p>\n

    [44]<\/a> [1910] AC 20<\/p>\n

    [45]<\/a> Tom Welsh, Walter Greenwood and
    \nDavid Banks, Mcnae’s Essential Law For Journalists<\/em> (19th edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2007) 240<\/p>\n

    [46]<\/a> [1940] 1 KB 377<\/p>\n

    [47]<\/a> Cees van Dam, European
    \nTort Law<\/em> (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 114 <\/p>\n

    [48]<\/a> David Howarth and others, Hepple
    \nAnd Matthews’ Tort Law: Cases And Materials<\/em> (7th edn, Bloomsbury).<\/p>\n

    [49]<\/a> David Oughton and Barbara
    \nHarvey, Law Of Torts<\/em> (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2015)
    \n159<\/p>\n

    [50]<\/a> Mark Lunney and Ken
    \nOliphant, Tort Law: Text And Materials<\/em> (3rd edn, Oxford
    \nUniversity Press 2008) 722<\/p>\n

    [51]<\/a> Chris Turner, Unlocking
    \nTorts<\/em> (4th edn, Routledge 2014) 354<\/p>\n

    [52]<\/a> Ibid <\/p>\n

    [53]<\/a> [1915] 3 KB 32<\/p>\n

    [54]<\/a> Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort law:
    \nText and materials<\/em> (5th edition, Oxford University press 2013) 714<\/p>\n

    [55]<\/a> [1888] 20 QBD 635<\/p>\n

    [56]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, Kidner\u2019s
    \nCasebook on Torts (13th<\/sup> edition Oxford University Press, 2015) 481<\/p>\n

    [57]<\/a> Chris Turner, Unlocking
    \nTorts<\/em> (4th edn, Routledge 2014) 355<\/p>\n

    [58]<\/a> [1991] 1 QB 283<\/p>\n

    [59]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [60]<\/a> ‘What Are Some Defenses To
    \nDefamation? | Rottenstein Law Group LLP’ (Rotlaw.com<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.rotlaw.com\/legal-library\/what-are-some-defenses-to-defamation\/>
    \naccessed 6 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [61]<\/a> [1894] 1 QB 671<\/p>\n

    [62]<\/a> Mark
    \nLunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law: Text And Materials<\/em> (3rd
    \nedn, Oxford University Press 2008) 719<\/p>\n

    [63]<\/a> Ministry of Justice, ‘Draft
    \nDefamation Bill’ (2011) 14<\/p>\n

    [64]<\/a> [1998] 4 All ER 155<\/p>\n

    [65]<\/a> Kirsty
    \nHorsey and Erika Rackley, Kidner\u2019s Casebook on Torts (13th<\/sup> edition
    \nOxford University Press, 2015) 381<\/p>\n

    [66]<\/a> [2010] UKSC 53<\/p>\n

    [67]<\/a> Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional
    \n& Administrative Law<\/em> (10th edn, Routledge 2017) 456<\/p>\n

    [68]<\/a> [1943] KB 746 at 753<\/p>\n

    [69]<\/a> Mark
    \nLunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law: Text And Materials<\/em> (3rd
    \nedn, Oxford University Press 2008) 725<\/p>\n

    [70]<\/a> s4 Defamation Act 2013<\/p>\n

    [71]<\/a> [2012] UKSC 11 <\/p>\n

    [72]<\/a> Jane Wright, Tort Law And
    \nHuman Rights<\/em> (2nd edn, Hart Publishing 2017) 257<\/p>\n

    [73]<\/a> Siamala
    \nKrishnan, ‘Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill: Striking A Balance?’ (2012) 23 Ent.
    \nL. R.<\/p>\n

     <http:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/ma state that
    \nthe buyer would under the contract be bound to take delivery of them. r whereby
    \nit w<\/p>\n

     <http:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/ma state that
    \nthe buyer would under the contract be bound to take delivery of them. r whereby
    \nit w<\/p>\n

    [74]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, Kidner\u2019s
    \nCasebook on Torts (13th<\/sup> edition Oxford University Press, 2015) 387<\/p>\n

    [75]<\/a> William P. Statsky, Essentials
    \nOf Torts<\/em> (2nd edn, West Legal Studies 2001) 273<\/p>\n

    [76]<\/a> Mark
    \nLunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law: Text And Materials<\/em> (3rd
    \nedn, Oxford University Press 2008) 729<\/p>\n

    [77]<\/a> [2001] AC 395<\/p>\n

    [78]<\/a> Vera
    \nBermingham and Carol Brennan, Tort Law Directions<\/em> (3rd edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2012) 265<\/p>\n

    [79]<\/a> Denis Keenan, Smith &
    \nKeenan’s English Law<\/em> (14th edn, Pearson Education Limited 2004) 568<\/p>\n

    [80]<\/a> [1895] 2 QB 189<\/p>\n

    [81]<\/a> Alastair
    \nMullis and Ken Oliphant, Torts<\/em> (1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan
    \n2011). 301<\/p>\n

    [82]<\/a> Mark
    \nLunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law: Text And Materials<\/em> (3rd
    \nedn, Oxford University Press 2008) 736<\/p>\n

    [83]<\/a> [1975] AC 135, [1974] 1 All ER 662<\/p>\n

    [84]<\/a> Vera
    \nBermingham and Carol Brennan, Tort Law Directions<\/em> (5th edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2016) 357<\/p>\n

    [85]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [86]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, Kidner\u2019s
    \nCasebook on Torts (13th<\/sup> edition Oxford University Press, 2015) 390 <\/p>\n

    [87]<\/a> Ibid <\/p>\n

    [88]<\/a>
    \nRory Dunlop, ‘Case Analysis: Article 10, The Reynolds Test And The Rule In The
    \nDuke Of Brunswick\u2019S Case: The Decision In Times Newspaper Ltd V The United
    \nKingdom’ <http:\/\/www.39essex.co.uk\/docs\/articles\/RDL_Times_v_UK.pdf>
    \naccessed 16 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [89]<\/a> Neville Cox, ‘The Future Of The
    \nReynolds Defence In Irish Defamation Law Following The Defamation Act 2009.’
    \n(2014) 51 Irish Jurist.<\/p>\n

    [90]<\/a> Joshua Rozenberg, ‘Ten-Point Test
    \nOf Responsible Journalism’ (Telegraph.co.uk<\/em>, 2004)
    \n<http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/uknews\/1476714\/Ten-point-test-of-responsible-journalism.html>
    \naccessed 8 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [91]<\/a> Ibid <\/p>\n

    [92]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [93]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [94]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, Kidner\u2019s
    \nCasebook on Torts (13th<\/sup> edition Oxford University Press, 2015) 391<\/p>\n

    [95]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [96]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [97]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [98]<\/a>
    \nIbid<\/p>\n

    [99]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [100]<\/a> Richard Kidner, Casebook
    \nOn Torts<\/em> (12th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 379<\/p>\n

    [101]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, Kidner\u2019s
    \nCasebook on Torts (13th<\/sup> edition Oxford University Press, 2015) 391<\/p>\n

    [102]<\/a>  <\/strong>Kee Yang Low, ‘Reynolds Privilege Transformed’ (2014) 130 L.Q.R.<\/p>\n

    [103]<\/a> ‘Media Law’ (Law Society
    \nGazette<\/em>, 2006) <https:\/\/www.lawgazette.co.uk\/law\/media-law\/4230.article>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [104]<\/a> Rory Dunlop, ‘Article 10, The
    \nReynolds Test And The Rule In The Duke Of Brunswick\u2019S Case: The Decision In
    \nTimes Newspaper Ltd V The United Kingdom’ (39 Essex Street<\/em>) <http:\/\/www.39essex.co.uk\/docs\/articles\/RDL_Times_v_UK.pdf>
    \naccessed 8 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [105]<\/a>
    \nIbid<\/p>\n

    [106]<\/a> [2001]
    \nEWCA Civ 1805; [2002] QB 783;
    \n[2002] 2 WLR 640; [2002] 1 All ER 652; [2002] EMLR 241<\/p>\n

    [107]<\/a> Tom Welsh, Walter Greenwood and
    \nDavid Banks, Mcnae’s Essential Law for Journalists<\/em> (19th edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2007) 275<\/p>\n

    [108]<\/a><\/p>\n

     <http:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/ma state that
    \nthe buyer would under the contract be bound to take delivery of them. r whereby
    \nit w Neville Cox, ‘The Future Of The
    \nReynolds Defence In Irish Defamation Law Following The Defamation Act 2009.’
    \n(2014) 51 Irish Jurist.<\/p>\n

    [109]<\/a> [2006] UKHL 44<\/a><\/p>\n

    [110]<\/a> Ursula Smartt, Media &
    \nEntertainment Law<\/em> (2nd edn, Routledge 2014) 53<\/p>\n

    [111]<\/a>  <\/strong>David Rolph, ‘A Critique Of The Defamation Act 2013: Lessons For And
    \nFrom Australian Defamation Law Reform’ (2016) 21 Comms. L.<\/p>\n

    [112]<\/a> Alastair Mullis and Ken
    \nOliphant, Torts<\/em> (1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2011) 307<\/p>\n

    [113]<\/a> Jenny Steele, Tort Law:
    \nText, Cases, And Materials<\/em> (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010) 796<\/p>\n

    [114]<\/a> [2007] EWCA Civ 972<\/p>\n

    [115]<\/a> Jenny Steele, Tort Law:
    \nText, Cases, And Materials<\/em> (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2010) 797<\/p>\n

    [116]<\/a> [2010] EMLR 26; [2010] HRLR 30<\/p>\n

    [117]<\/a> Vera Bermingham and Carol
    \nBrennan, Tort Law Directions<\/em> (4th edn, Oxford University Press
    \n2014) 298<\/p>\n

    [118]<\/a>  <\/strong>Owen Bowcott, ‘Times Libel Ruling Restores Reynolds Public Interest
    \nDefence’ (The Guardian<\/em>, 2012) <https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/media\/2012\/mar\/21\/times-libel-reynolds-defence>
    \naccessed 18 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [119]<\/a> Harry Melkonian, Defamation,
    \nLibel Tourism And The SPEECH Act Of 2010<\/em> (1st edn, Cambria Press
    \n2011).<\/p>\n

    [120]<\/a> of the European
    \nConvention on Human Rights (ECHR)<\/p>\n

    [121]<\/a> Vera
    \nBermingham and Carol Brennan, Tort Law Directions<\/em> (4th edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2014) 298<\/p>\n

    [122]<\/a>  Sally Martin, ‘The Defamation Act 2013: The Emperor\u2019s New Clothes? – Litigation,
    \nMediation & Arbitration – UK’ (Mondaq.com<\/em>, 2013) <http:\/\/www.mondaq.com\/x\/282472\/Libel+Defamation\/The+Defamation+Act+2013+The+Emperors+New+Clothes>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [123]<\/a> Boris Uphoff and Vincent Schroder,
    \n‘The UK Defamation Act 2013 Comes Into Effect’ (The National Law Review<\/em>,
    \n2014) <http:\/\/www.natlawreview.com\/article\/uk-defamation-act-2013-comes-effect>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [124]<\/a> Major 2014, ‘Major Changes to
    \nDefamation Law In The UK To Take Effect 1 January 2014 | White & Case LLP
    \nInternational Law Firm, Global Law Practice’ (Whitecase.com<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/www.whitecase.com\/publications\/article\/major-changes-defamation-law-uk-take-effect-1-january-2014>
    \naccessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [125]<\/a> House Of Commons – Press
    \nStandards, Privacy And Libel – Culture, Media And Sport Committee’ (Publications.parliament.uk<\/em>,
    \n2010)
    \n<https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm200910\/cmselect\/cmcumeds\/362\/36206.htm>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [126]<\/a> Philip Steele, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Sensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>,
    \n2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [127]<\/a> ‘Defamation Act 2013 Aims to
    \nImprove Libel Laws – BBC News’ (BBC News<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-25551640> accessed 19 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [128]<\/a> Mark Scodie, ‘Defamation In
    \nEmployment’ (2014)
    \n<http:\/\/www.bwbllp.com\/file\/bwb-empup-defamation-march14-pdf> accessed 20
    \nMarch 2017.<\/p>\n

    [129]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [130]<\/a> Philip Steele, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Sensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>,
    \n2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [131]<\/a> Explanatory Notes To Bills:
    \nDEFAMATION BILL’ (Publications.parliament.uk<\/em>)
    \n<https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/bills\/cbill\/2012-2013\/0005\/en\/13005en.htm>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [132]<\/a> [2002] EWCA Civ 1772, [2003] EMLR<\/p>\n

    [133]<\/a> Laura Scaife, Handbook Of
    \nSocial Media And The Law<\/em> (1st edn, Infroma law from Routledge 2015) 86<\/p>\n

    [134]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [135]<\/a> Philip Steele, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Sensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>,
    \n2014) <https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [136]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [137]<\/a> [2001] EMLR 31 CFA <\/p>\n

    [138]<\/a> Olivia O’Kane, ‘The Defamation Act
    \n2013 And Its Explanatory Notes – Insight Articles – News & Events – Carson
    \nMcdowell’ (Carson-mcdowell.com<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/www.carson-mcdowell.com\/news-and-events\/insights\/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [139]<\/a> Phillip Steele, ‘The New Law Of
    \nDefamation: A Sensible Balance Or Step Back? | Brabners LLP’ (Brabners LLP<\/em>,
    \n2013)
    \n<http:\/\/www.brabners.com\/news\/new-law-defamation-sensible-balance-or-step-back>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [140]<\/a> [2010] UKSC 53 <\/p>\n

    [141]<\/a> Olivia O’Kane, ‘The Defamation Act
    \n2013 And Its Explanatory Notes – Insight Articles – News & Events – Carson
    \nMcdowell’ (Carson-mcdowell.com<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/www.carson-mcdowell.com\/news-and-events\/insights\/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [142]<\/a> Phillip Steele, ‘The New Law Of
    \nDefamation: A Sensible Balance Or Step Back? | Brabners LLP’ (Brabners LLP<\/em>,
    \n2013)
    \n<http:\/\/www.brabners.com\/news\/new-law-defamation-sensible-balance-or-step-back>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [143]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [144]<\/a> ‘Defamation Act 2013’ (Legislation.gov.uk<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2013\/26\/section\/4\/enacted> accessed
    \n20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [145]<\/a> Iain Wilson and Max Campbell,
    \n‘Defamation Act 2013: A Summary And Overview \u2013 Iain Wilson And Max Campbell’ (Inforrm’s
    \nBlog<\/em>, 2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/21\/defamation-act-2013-a-summary-of-the-act-iain-wilson-and-max-campbell\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [146]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [147]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [148]<\/a> ‘Defamation Act 2013’ (Legislation.gov.uk<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/www.legislation.gov.uk\/ukpga\/2013\/26\/section\/5\/enacted> accessed
    \n20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [149]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [150]<\/a> Pritpal Bhachu and Yousif Al
    \nZarouni, Tort Law: A Revision Guide For Law Students<\/em> (1st edn,
    \nYousif Al Zarouni 2016) 66<\/p>\n

    [151]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [152]<\/a> Philip Steele, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Sensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>,
    \n2014) <https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [153]<\/a> [2010] EWCA Civ 350<\/p>\n

    [154]<\/a> Olivia O’Kane, ‘The Defamation Act
    \n2013 And Its Explanatory Notes – Insight Articles – News & Events – Carson
    \nMcdowell’ (Carson-mcdowell.com<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/www.carson-mcdowell.com\/news-and-events\/insights\/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [155]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [156]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika
    \nRackley, Tort Law<\/em> (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2015) 486<\/p>\n

    [157]<\/a> [2001] 2 AC 277<\/p>\n

    [158]<\/a> Olivia O’Kane, ‘The Defamation Act
    \n2013 And Its Explanatory Notes – Insight Articles – News & Events – Carson
    \nMcdowell’ (Carson-mcdowell.com<\/em>, 2013) <https:\/\/www.carson-mcdowell.com\/news-and-events\/insights\/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [159]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [160]<\/a> Philip Steele, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Sensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>,
    \n2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [161]<\/a> James Kitching, ‘English
    \nDefamation Law \u2013 The Requirement For “Serious Harm” And Other
    \nImportant Changes Impacting The Protection Of Your Reputation | Lexology’ (Lexology.com<\/em>,
    \n2014)
    \n<http:\/\/www.lexology.com\/library\/detail.aspx?g=6cd0e337-604f-43e9-9a82-2e667d6731d1>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [162]<\/a> Defamation
    \nAct 2013<\/p>\n

    [163]<\/a> David Hooper, ‘How The Court Will Interpret Whether
    \nEngland Is The Most Appropriate Place To Bring A Libel Action’ (2016) 27 Ent.
    \nL. R.<\/p>\n

    [164]<\/a> Philip Steele, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Sensible Balance Or A Step Back? \u2013 Philip Steele’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>,
    \n2014)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2014\/01\/03\/defamation-act-2013-a-sensible-balance-or-a-step-back-philip-steele\/>
    \naccessed 20 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [165]<\/a> Timothy Pinto, ‘Defamation Act
    \n2013 \u2013 A Boost For Free Speech \u2013 Part 4: Single Publication Rule, Forum
    \nShopping And Juries \u2013 Timothy Pinto’ (Inforrm’s Blog<\/em>, 2013)
    \n<https:\/\/inforrm.wordpress.com\/2013\/05\/24\/defamation-act-2013-a-boost-for-free-speech-part-4-single-publication-rule-forum-shopping-and-juries-timothy-pinto\/>
    \naccessed 21 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [166]<\/a> Faizan Sadiq,
    \n‘Defamation Act 2013 \u2013 What’s Changed?’ (The Student Lawyer<\/em>)
    \n<http:\/\/thestudentlawyer.com\/2013\/08\/19\/defamation-act-2013-whats-changed\/>
    \naccessed 22 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [167]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [168]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [169]<\/a> Ministry of Justice, ‘Draft
    \nDefamation Bill’ (2011).<\/p>\n

    [170]<\/a> Ursula Smartt, Media &
    \nEntertainment Law<\/em> (2nd edn, Routledge 2014) 131<\/p>\n

    [171]<\/a> Anamaria-Mitina Mihaita,
    \n‘Defamation Act 2013: Free Speech Or Reputation? | North East Law Talk’ (Blogs.ncl.ac.uk<\/em>,
    \n2013)
    \n<https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/nelr\/2013\/06\/25\/defamation-act-2013-free-speech-or-reputation\/>
    \naccessed 10 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [172]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [173]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [174]<\/a> Kirsty Horsey and Erika
    \nRackley, Tort Law<\/em> (4th edn, Oxford University Press 2015) 467<\/p>\n

    [175]<\/a> Human Rights Act 1998<\/p>\n

    [176]<\/a> ‘The Human Rights Act | Equality
    \nand Human Rights Commission’ (Equalityhumanrights.com<\/em>) <https:\/\/www.equalityhumanrights.com\/en\/human-rights\/human-rights-act>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [177]<\/a> Johannes Morsink, The
    \nUniversal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, And Intent<\/em> (1st
    \nedn, University of Pennsylvania Press 1999) 1<\/p>\n

    [178]<\/a> R FINKELSTEIN and M RICKETSON,
    \n‘REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY INTO THE MEDIA AND MEDIA REGULATION’ (2012)
    \n<http:\/\/www.abc.net.au\/mediawatch\/transcripts\/1205_finkelstein.pdf>
    \naccessed 24 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [179]<\/a>
    \nthis shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
    \ninformation and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
    \nof frontiers<\/p>\n

    [180]<\/a>  <\/strong>Peter Coe, ‘The Value Of Corporate Reputation And The Defamation Act
    \n2013: A Brave New World Or Road To Ruin?’ (2013) 18 Comms. L.<\/p>\n

    [181]<\/a>  <\/strong>Lee Roach, Card And James’ Business Law<\/em> (3rd edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2014) 453<\/p>\n

    [182]<\/a> [2001] EMLR 943<\/p>\n

    [183]<\/a> Simon Deakin, Angus Johnston and
    \nBasil Markesinis, Markesinis And Deakin’s Tort Law<\/em> (7th edn,
    \nOxford University Press 2013) 646<\/p>\n

    [184]<\/a> this includes freedom to hold opinions without
    \ninterference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any<\/p>\n

    media and regardless of frontiers<\/p>\n

    [185]<\/a> Corinna Coors, ‘Opinion Or
    \nDefamation? Limits Of Free Speech In Online Customer Reviews In The Digital
    \nEra’ (2015) 20 Comms. L.<\/p>\n

    [186]<\/a>  Simon Singh, ‘Simon Singh: It Is Too Late For Me, But Libel Laws Must
    \nChange For The Public Good’ The Telegraph<\/em> (2010) <http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/comment\/7294539\/Simon-Singh-it-is-too-late-for-me-but-libel-laws-must-change-for-the-public-good.html>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [187]<\/a> ‘International Guarantee \u00b7 What We
    \nDo \u00b7 Article 19’ (Article19<\/em>) <https:\/\/www.article19.org\/pages\/en\/international-guarantee.html>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017.<\/p>\n

    [188]<\/a> House of Commons Culture, Media
    \nand Sport Committee, ‘Press Standards, Privacy And Libel’ (The Stationary
    \nOffice Limited 2010) <https:\/\/www.publications.parliament.uk\/pa\/cm200910\/cmselect\/cmcumeds\/362\/362ii.pdf>
    \naccessed 26 March 2017  <\/p>\n

    [189]<\/a> Mark Lunney and Ken
    \nOliphant, Tort law: Text and materials<\/em> (5th edition, Oxford
    \nUniversity press 2013) 764<\/p>\n

    [190]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [191]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    [192]<\/a> Robert Balin, Laura Handman and
    \nErin Reid, ‘Libel Tourism and the Duke’s Manservant – An American Perspective’
    \n(2009) 3 European Human Rights Law Review 303, 304.<\/p>\n

    [193]<\/a> Jideofor Adibe, ‘Between Free
    \nSpeech And Protection Of Reputation’ (Dailytrust.com.ng<\/em>, 2014) <https:\/\/www.dailytrust.com.ng\/daily\/columns\/thursday-columns\/36331-between-free-speech-and-protection-of-reputation>
    \naccessed 1 April 2017.<\/p>\n

    [194]<\/a> Keith Schilling, ‘The
    \nAmericanisation Of English Libel Laws’ (2000) 11 Ent. L. R.<\/p>\n

    [195]<\/a> 376 U.S. 254 (1964)<\/p>\n

    [196]<\/a> Richard A. Parker, Free
    \nSpeech On Trial: Communication Perspectives On Landmark Supreme Court Decisions<\/em> (1st
    \nedn, The University Of Alabama Press 2003) 120<\/p>\n

    [197]<\/a> Michael Socha, ‘Double Standard: A Comparison Of British And American
    \nDefamation Law’ (2004) 23 Penn State International Law Review
    \n<http:\/\/elibrary.law.psu.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1637&context=psilr>
    \naccessed 4 April 2017. 20<\/p>\n

    [198]<\/a> David S Ardia, ‘Reputation in a Networked world: Revisiting the social
    \nfoundations of defamation law by David S. Ardia: SSRN’ (10 October 2010)
    \n<http:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=1689865> accessed 28 February 2017<\/p>\n

    inal
    \nactivites. iament, rather les accusing the claimant of being involved in
    \ninternational criminal activites. iament, rather <\/p>\n

    [199]<\/a> Ibid<\/p>\n

    inal
    \nactivites. iament, rather les accusing the claimant of being involved in
    \ninternational criminal activites. iament, rather <\/p>\n

    [200]<\/a>  <\/strong>Lucy Trevelyan, ‘Claimant-Friendly Defamation Laws Could Be About To
    \nChange’ (Law Society Gazette<\/em>, 2010) <https:\/\/www.lawgazette.co.uk\/analysis\/claimant-friendly-defamation-laws-could-be-about-to-change\/57665.article>
    \naccessed 13 April 2017.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaystort-law","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nDoes the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog? | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"53 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\"},\"wordCount\":10647,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Tort Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\",\"name\":\"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog? | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog? | LawTeacher.net","description":"This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?","og_description":"This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"53 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php"},"wordCount":10647,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Tort Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php","name":"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog? | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"This study will critically analyse and evaluate the types of defamation and then move on to explain the elements involved in defamation.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/tort-law\/laws-defamation-protect-media-7823.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Does the Law of Defamation Protect the Media\u2019s Role as a Public Watchdog?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}