The Right to Speak Ill : Defamation, Reputation And Free Speech

Preface xiii Chapter 1 Introduction 3(14) Chapter 2 The Common Law Tradition 17(18) A. Libel, Slander and Procedure 18(3) B. The Plaintiff's Case 21(4) C. The Defendant's Case 25(10) 1. Justification 25(3) 2. Fair Comment 28(3) 3. Privileges 31(4) Chapter 3 U.S. Defamation Law and the New York Times Decision 35(42) A. From the Framing to Garrison and New York Times: Early U.S. Libel Decisions 35(4) 1. Incorporation 36(1) 2. Defamation as Unprotected Speech 36(3) B. The Constitutionalization of Defamation: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 39(10) 1. The Facts 39(4) 2. The Decision 43(6) C. Post-Sullivan Refinements 49(17) 1. Further Definition of the "Public Official" Concept 50(1) 2. The "Public Figure" Concept 51(2) 3. "Private Individuals" 53(8) 4. Distinguishing "Public Figures" from Private Individuals 61(5) D. Rejection of the "Public Interest" Standard 66(2) E. Application of the "Actual Malice" Standard 68(6) F. Fact v. Opinion 74(1) G. Conclusion 75(2) Chapter 4 1990's Australian and English Developments 77(54) A. The Australian Free Speech Decisions and Lange 77(13) 1. Pre-Lange Defamation Law 78(2) 2. The Theophanous Decision 80(2) 3. The Lange Decision 82(5) 4. Other Developments Related to the Law of Libel 87(2) 5. Conclusions on Lange 89(1) B. Reynolds and the English Extension of Qualified Privilege 90(41) 1. Developments Pre-Reynolds 90(9) 2. The Reynolds Development 99(12) 3. Measuring Up to the Human Rights Act 1998 111(9) 4. Other Developments Related to the Law of Libel 120(7) i. Data Protection Laws 120(4) ii. Press Complaints Commission 124(3) 5. Conclusions Regarding Reynolds 127(4) Chapter 5 Interview Results: England and Australia Prior to Qualified Privilege Extensions 131(52) A. Pre-Reynolds English Interviews 131(19) 1. The External Perception: England's Tabloid Press 131(7) 2. The English Interviews 138(12) i. Threats of Suits 139(1) ii. Post-Publication Suits and Threats of Suits 139(2) iii. Insurance 141(1) iv. Participation of Lawyers in the Editorial Process 141(1) v. The Role of Lawyers and the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard 142(1) vi. The Impact of the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard 143(1) vii. Hypothetical English Watergate 144(2) viii. Possible Effects of the English Standards—Cost-Benefit Calculations or More Balanced Reporting? 146(1) ix. Regional Newspapers 147(1) x. Ability to Report on Political Figures 148(1) xi. The Role of Privileges for Reporting Parliaments and Courts 149(1) xii. Ability to Report the Public Interest 150(1) B. The Australian Interviews: Pre-Lange 150(30) 1. Threats of Suit 151(1) 2. The Rate of Defamation Litigation 152(3) 3. Responses to Threats of Suit: Pre-Publication 155(1) 4. Responses to Post-Publication Suits and Threats of Suits 156(2) 5. Insurance 158(1) 6. The Motivations of Defamation Plaintiffs 159(2) 7. Participation of Lawyers in the Editorial Process 161(2) 8. The Role of Lawyers in the Editorial Process: Privileges and "Legally Admissible Evidence" 163(2) 9. The Impact of the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard on Reporting 165(4) 10. The Media and Particularly Litigious Individuals 169(4) 11. A Resourceful Media 173(2) 12. Ability to Report the Public Interest 175(1) 13. A Hypothetical Australian "Watergate" 176(1) 14. Australia's Cost Rules 177(3) C. Preliminary Conclusions: Regarding the Australian and English Media 180(3) Chapter 6 The American Interviews: The Impact of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and the "Actual Malice Standard" 183(18) A. Suits and Threats of Suit 185(3) B. Responses to Suits and Threats of Suits: Pre-Publication 188(1) C. Responses to Threats of Suits: Post-Publication 189(1) D. Insurance 189(1) E. The Motivations of Defamation Plaintiffs 190(1) F. Lawyers and the Editorial Process 190(1) G. The Lawyer's Perspective in the Editorial Process 191(2) H. Particularly Litigious Individuals 193(1) I. Suits by Politicians 194(1) J. Suits by Police and Governmental Officials 194(1) K. Resourceful Media 195(1) L. Ability to Report the Public Interest 195(4) M. Cost Rules 199(1) N. Conclusions 200(1) Chapter 7 Interview Results: Australia Following Extensions to Qualified Privilege 201(14) A. Theophanous 201(3) B. Lange: Immediate Effects 204(3) C. Lange: Six Years On 207(6) 1. Impact on the Pace of Litigation 207(1) 2. Suits by Politicians 208(1) 3. Suits by Police and Governmental Officials 209(1) 4. Lawyers and the Editorial Process 209(1) 5. Impact on Pre-Publication Advice 210(1) 6. Uncertainties about Lange's Meaning and Application 211(1) 7. Privileges and Legally Admissible Evidence 211(1) 8. Impact on the Media's View of "Extremely Litigious Individuals" 212(1) 9. The Continuing Impact of the Costs Rule 212(1) 10. Additional Concerns 212(1) D. Conclusion 213(2) Chapter 8 Interview Results: Reynold's Impact on the English Media 215(28) A. Threats of Suit 215(2) B. The Rate of Defamation Litigation 217(2) C. Responses to Threats of Suit: Pre-Publication 219(1) D. Responses to Post-Publication Suits and Threats of Suits 220(1) E. Insurance 221(1) F. The Motivations of Defamation Plaintiffs 221(1) G. Participation of Lawyers in the Editorial Process 222(1) H. Reynolds and the "Legally Admissible Evidence" Standard 223(3) I. Ability to Report the Public Interest 226(1) J. Concerns About Reynolds 227(6) K. Reynolds and Particularly Litigious Individuals 233(1) L. Suits by Governmental Officials 234(1) M. Data Protection Laws 235(1) N. A Hypothetical English "Watergate" 236(1) O. Court Cost Rules 237(3) P. Conclusion 240(3) Chapter 9 Conclusions: Defamation, Free Speech and Reputation in Democratic Societies 243(50) A. The Common Law Approach 245(1) B. The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard 246(20) 1. Does Sullivan Spawn Costly Litigation That Intrudes into Editorial Processes? 247(5) 2. Large Damage Claims and Large Awards 252(3) 3. Little Protection for Reputation 255(1) 4. An "Irresponsible" Media? 256(3) 5. Sullivan's Focus on Plaintiff's Status is Misdirected 259(6) 6. Conclusions about "Actual Malice" 265(1) C. The Lange Approach 266(6) 1. Is Litigation under Lange Complex and Intrusive? 267(3) 2. Cost Rules and Plaintiff and Defendant Legal Expertise 270(1) 3. A Focus on "Political Communication" not Plaintiff Status 271(1) D. The Reynolds Approach 272(17) 1. Focus on the Public Interest 275(1) 2. Complexity and Uncertainty 276(1) 3. Regulation of the "Tone" of Allegations 277(3) 4. Impact of Cost Rules 280(1) 5. Pre-Publication Restraints 281(1) 6. Conclusions about the Reynolds Approach 282(7) E. Conclusion: A Final Tally and Alternative Approaches 289(4) Bibliography 293(12) Table of Cases 305(6) Index 311