r51due

本篇paper代写- The governance of libel in Britain讨论了英国的诽谤治理。诽谤立法上，欧盟主要存在两种模式，分别是以英国为代表的国家制定的《诽谤法》；还有以德国为代表的大陆法系国家则通过一般性法律来规制诽谤行为。然而，英国《诽谤法》并不仅指成文法，还包括大量普通法的内容。英国在规制诽谤行为方面有着比较悠久的历史。英国现行《诽谤法》规定，损害他人利益、品格和名誉的内容一旦发表，就会被认定为诽谤，而直接或间接传播相关内容的人也可以被起诉赔偿。本篇paper代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

In terms of libel legislation, there are two main models in the eu. The civil law countries represented by Germany regulate defamation through general laws. However, the English libel act does not refer only to statutory law, but also to a great deal of common law.

The common law is dominant, the statutory law is subsidiary but has priority. The libel law in Britain mainly consists of two forms: common law and statutory law, in which common law is the main form and statutory law is the auxiliary form. However, statutory law has priority in application. Britain has a long history in regulating libel. The modern libel laws of the commonwealth countries and even the United States almost all originate from the British libel law. The earliest civil libel suits in Britain date back to the reign of Edward I, and the first written libel law, the libel on the rich and powerful act, dates from the 14th century. Many statutes on libel incorporate, amend or extend common law principles, such as the libel act 1952 and the libel act 1996. At present, the statutory law on libel in the UK is mainly the newly revised UK libel act 2013.

Civil litigation, generally does not involve criminal offences. Civil law countries traditionally focus on criminal offense to treat defamation. For example, Germany regulates defamation mainly through criminal means. Articles 185 to 200 of the German penal code provide for the crime of insult and defamation, and the punishment includes three months to five years of freedom and fine. If article 187 is a special provision of the crime of defamation, which expressly states: "where a person knowingly asserts or disseminates facts which are not true, thereby exposing him or her to public contempt or degradation or to the detriment of his or her reputation, he or she shall be subject to a sentence of not more than two years' freedom or a fine; To carry out this act in public or at a meeting or by distributing a document shall be subject to a sentence of not more than five years' freedom or a fine." However, in Britain, the calumniated usually seek relief through civil action for defamation. The modern English libel law does not stipulate criminal libel. The main reason for not criminalizing libel is to protect citizens' freedom of speech.

Libel is divided into verbal and written libel. In Britain, libel is divided into verbal and written libel depending on how it is spread. Among them, written defamation refers to the proliferation in written and permanent form, which causes great damage; Verbal slander, on the other hand, is oral, with limited scope and time to spread and less damage. For libel, the plaintiff does not need to prove that he has been harmed by libel, but simply to identify the content of the libel. Plaintiffs in libel cases are required to prove damage caused by libel.

Legal persons may also bring libel suits. Under British libel law, individuals, companies and associations can Sue for libel as plaintiffs. The exceptions are Chambers of commerce, parties and unincorporated bodies, because they are not legal entities in English law, but party members can Sue for defamatory content against a party, mainly because there is a close relationship between the reputation of the party and the reputation of its members. Moreover, the government, because of its own administrative and administrative functions, cannot bring libel suits as plaintiffs.

Statistics show that in most libel cases in Britain, the plaintiff is usually an individual and the defendant is a newspaper or a radio station. In recent years, with the rapid development of Internet new media, the number of Internet service providers as defendants is gradually increasing, which also makes the original defamation law face a new test. English libel law has long been considered a "plaintiff's paradise", and the very nature of online libel has forced British lawmakers to start weighing the merits of the original rules.

On April 25, 2013, after two years of deliberation, the UK defamation act 2013 was officially introduced, which was another major revision of the UK defamation act 1952 after it was amended in 1996. The new defamation law mainly includes nine aspects, including serious injury requirement, defense reason, single publication rule, judicial jurisdiction, jury, open summary of court judgment, removal of defamation content, defamation, general clause and so on. Compared with previous libel laws in the UK, this law has the following points that deserve special attention:

Libel suits require proof of "serious injury". Prior to the enactment of the new libel law, plaintiffs suing for oral or written libel needed to prove that the content was defamatory, that the content was directed at the plaintiff, and that the content had been published. However, article 1 of the new defamation law in 2013 stipulates: "a libel cannot be judged unless the publication of the content in question has caused or is likely to cause serious damage to the plaintiff's reputation." An institutional plaintiff cannot Sue for defamation unless serious property damage has been or is likely to be caused. This means that the plaintiff has to prove damage, so the new libel law raises the bar for libel suits.

Add to or repeal the original defense grounds. The new law provides six libel defences:

As long as the defendant proves that the content involved in the case has substantial truth, it does not constitute defamation. If there are more than two contents involved, it will not constitute defamation as long as the main content is basically true, even if it is inconsistent with the facts but does not constitute serious damage. At the same time, it removed justifiable defences from both the common law and the English libel act of 1952.

The defence of the accused will be supported if the following conditions are met: The opinion content is based on public facts or privileged content made in good faith. Of course, if the defendant publicly publishes the content of others, and the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knows or should know that the original author does not have this view, the defense is invalid. At the same time, it eliminated the common law and the fair comment defence of the English libel act of 1952.

It does not constitute defamation if the defendant proves that the published content is relevant to the public interest or if the defendant has reason to believe that it is relevant to the public interest. In judging whether a defendant's act of public publication is really for the public interest, the court shall, at the appropriate time, seek the judgment of the editor. At the same time, it repeals the famous Reynolds privilege defense principle in common law.

The Reynolds privilege comes from the famous Reynolds case in 1994, which has an important place in British libel law. Reynolds privilege means that if the news content involved in the lawsuit involves social and public interests, and the media's performance conforms to the responsible news report, then even if the news content is wrong, the media can be exempted from responsibility. Although the media lost the case, the judge who heard the case believed that the court should pay special attention to the status of freedom of expression, and should be cautious about whether media reports involve public interests and whether the public has the right to know, especially when they involve political fields. Reynolds privilege extends restricted privilege to public-interest journalism, a significant relaxation from traditional libel laws that impose strict liability on the accused media.

For user-generated content on the network, the operator can contest a libel suit if it complies with its "notify-and-delete" obligations. This section will play an important role in the regulation of online defamation.

Content published in a scientific or academic journal should not be considered defamatory unless it can be proved that the defendant was "malicious" at the time of publication. Of course, the content should meet the following requirements: must be related to science or academic; before publication, it is reviewed by a magazine editor or reviewed by one or more peer experts.

This section amended the scope of the privilege protection defense in the British libel act 1996 and added new contents, such as the fair and accurate reporting related to the public interest in the press conference held anywhere in the world to be included in the scope of legal protection.

New libel remedies have been added. Under the new defamation law, a court has the right to ask a defendant to publish a court judgment. The time, manner and place of publication are up to the parties to negotiate. To some extent, this can restore the reputation of the plaintiff. However, the previous common law remedy mainly applied for injunction and economic compensation.

It is not hard to see two trends reflected in this revision of the law: it makes it harder for plaintiffs to bring libel cases; Increased isps' liability for online defamation. The two trends, which represent the protection of free speech and personal reputation respectively, suggest that the UK legislature is trying to strike a new balance between the two.

In the Internet environment, it is often difficult to find the real perpetrators of defamation, and because of the rapid, open, free and other characteristics of the network, defamation consequences are more serious than traditional. In recent years, the UK has gradually begun to pay attention to the regulation of defamation in the new media environment. Both the court judgment and the newly passed UK defamation law 2013 tend to increase the liability of Internet service providers in online defamation cases.

At the end of the last century, Britain's Supreme Court dealt with an internet-related libel case. The plaintiff Godfrey requested the defendant Demon company to delete the defamatory content on its website, but the defendant did not meet the plaintiff's request, the plaintiff then filed a lawsuit. In the end, the court held that Demon has a reasonable duty of care for the content on its website, and that Demon's inaction has helped the libel. The case has sparked a heated debate in the UK over the responsibilities of Internet service providers and freedom of speech online.

Loutchansky v The Times in 2001 established the principle of "public publication" on the Internet. Under the defamation act of 1996, a requirement for a libel to be established is that "the content of a statement must be published publicly." what about publication on the Internet? Is it possible to set up an "open publication" as long as it is published on the Internet? The judge in the case held that a new "public publication" was created when the reader entered the content and as long as someone read the content, it was established when the reader entered the content. This leaves the onus on the isps to prove that the content was not read, or was read by a small number of people. The court held the defendant, a well-known news outlet whose website is viewed by tens of millions of people every day, liable for defamation. In contrast, in Jameel et al. V. the Wall Street journal in 2006, the defendant was spared liability for proving that the defamatory statement had been downloaded by only five people.

In February 2013, Payam Tamiz v Google, a British citizen, became an important indicator of the development of new libel laws in the UK. Although the court of appeal finally made a judgment in favor of Google on the grounds of the lack of effective evidence to prove the number of people who read the offensive remarks involved, the court's position is clear, that is, if the Internet service provider fails to delete the defamatory content in time, it can ask it to assume legal responsibility. It can be seen that the court has a tendency to raise the reasonable duty of care established in the early judgment to the duty of "notification-deletion".

English libel statute law is the summary and supplement of common law and has priority in application. Section 5 of the UK defamation act 2013 actually establishes the status of "notification-deletion" rule in statutory law, which can play an effective role in the regulation of online defamation, but at the same time has certain influence on the freedom of speech.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。