The draft new rules would work together with reforms to UK
libel laws brought about under the Defamation Act.
Not exact matches
«So when Trump says he wants to «open up»
libel law, he really means (if he has the slightest knowledge of the
law) that he wants to open up — to change — the First Amendment, which, beginning in 1964, has been held to require in cases
brought by public figures, proof that what was said was false, and that the newspaper knew or suspected that it was false.
He
brought the suit [in Britain] because British
libel law puts the burden on the defendants — in this case, Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin — to prove the truth of their assertions.
The very act of
bringing a
law suit for
libel is diminishing to a certain extent of one's public image.
It replaces the common
law defence of «fair comment» with the statutory defence of «honest opinion», and takes a potshot at «
libel tourism» by providing that the courts should not deal with actions
brought against non-UK or non-EU residents unless satisfied it is appropriate to do so.
Yesterday's House of Lords ruling easing British
libel law is being hailed by news organizations for
bringing English journalists closer to the freedoms enjoyed by reporters in the United States.
That's an important step on the path to
bring British
libel law in line with basic principles of free speech and common sense that all blawgers should be happy to see.
Romanova v Sloutsker: for the appellant Russian journalist on behalf of Media
Law Defence Initiative in her challenge to Court of Appeal against jurisdiction judgment -LRB-[2015] EWHC 545 (QB)-RRB- permitting the
libel claim of a Russian oligarch to be
brought in the English courts.
The
laws on defamation need buffering and redrafting to
bring them into line with how easily
libelling can occur now on a daily basis and which fundamentally, and by increments, undermines the
law overall.