Reputation, Celebrity and Defamation Law

Rolph, David

doi:10.4324/9781315605524

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Essentially, its gist can be captured as repairing the harm caused to a claimant's perceived status and the esteem in which he or she is held by others. 25 There is some lack of definite conviction as to which aspects of defamation proceedings effect vindication. 26 A claimant may obtain some measure of vindication from a reasoned judgment, giving the judge's conclusions and detailed reasons for reaching them.…”

Section: Vindication and Libel Damages In The Post 2013 Defamation Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the litigation winner becomes the loser: undeserving claimants and mitigation of damages in libel claims

Antoniou

2018

Journal of Media Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article assesses how the English courts have compensated defamed claimants who had misconducted themselves before action or during the course of litigation. It demonstrates that in recent years judges appear to have liberalised their approach to accepting evidence in mitigation of libel damages and allowed claimants' disreputable conduct to restrict the level of awards almost to a vanishing point. The article argues that this emerging approach does not cohere with that adopted in other branches of tort, where claimants' misbehaviour does not affect the level of general damages awarded, and carries with it the risk of undermining the vindicatory policy of libel law.

show abstract

Section: Vindication and Libel Damages In The Post 2013 Defamation Acmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the litigation winner becomes the loser: undeserving claimants and mitigation of damages in libel claims

Antoniou

2018

Journal of Media Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Where defamation law might be engaged, how is it to interact with these other regulatory forms? Does big data call into question the already rather lite rationale for the protection of reputation in terms of either honour, moral status, dignity, sociality or citizenship (Aplin and Bosland, 2016;Howarth, 2011;McNamara, 2007;Post, 1986;Richardson, 2013;Rolph, 2008)? Does this transition in fact point to the need to think through the interests at stake differently, perhaps involving more attention to speech, privacy and information flows?…”

Section: The Broader Challenge Of Big Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A further challenge lies in how we perceive the rationale for defamation law. Is it to vindicate one's reputation in public as well as to console for hurt feelings, or does it track (in some sense) with a more proprietary conception of reputation as brand or value which relates less to dignity and more to the potential for commodification or celebrity (Rolph, 2008;Varuhas, 2014). For example, in arguing that there is a distinct form of 'reputation as celebrity' David Rolph (2008: 37, 38) has written that reputation 'can be conceptualised not only as a social and an economic construct, but.…”

Section: The Broader Challenge Of Big Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Data associations and the protection of reputation online in Australia

Joyce

2017

Big Data & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article focuses upon defamation law in Australia and its struggles to adjust to the digital landscape, to illustrate the broader challenges involved in the governance and regulation of data associations. In many instances, online publication will be treated by the courts in a similar fashion to traditional forms of publication. What is more contentious is the question of who, if anyone, should bear the responsibility for digital forms of defamatory publication which result not from an individual author's activity online but rather from algorithmic associations. This article seeks, in part, to analyse this question, by reference to the Australian case law and associated scholarship regarding search engine liability. Reflecting on the tensions involved here offers us a fresh perspective on defamation law through the conceptual lens of data associations. Here the focus of the article shifts to explore some wider questions posed for defamation law by big data. Defamation law may come to play a significant role in emerging frameworks for algorithmic accountability, but these developments also call into question many of its traditional concepts and assumptions. It may be time to think differently about defamation and to consider its interrelationship with privacy, speech and data protection more fully. As a result, I conclude that the courts and policymakers need to engage more deeply and explicitly with the rationale(s) for the protection of reputation and that more thought needs to be given to changing conceptions of reputation in the context of data associations.

show abstract

“…Among different types of law in the common law jurisdictions, defamation law is indispensable. In Hong Kong, the number of case law on 2007;Milo 2008;Rolph 2008). The approach to meaning is concerned with how to determine the meaning of words or statements in defamatory dispute cases (e.g., Appellate Court overruled the trial court on the application of the law to some of the allegedly defamatory statements, Nicholson (2000: 32) notes that it is correct, according to the traditional English approach to defamation cases, to determine the "natural and ordinary" meaning of the words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defamation case law in Hong Kong: A corpus-based study

Cheng

2016

Semiotica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defamation law is a long-standing research focus. Previous studies on defamation law have pointed out the importance of balancing two fundamental issues in law, namely, protection of reputation and freedom of speech. The present corpus-based legal study, using ConcGram 1.0 as the analytical tool, examined the phraseological profile of reported cases on defamation in Hong Kong in order to find out the types of defense and the approach to meaning in the defamation case law in Hong Kong. Regarding defenses to a defamation claim, the results show that fair comment, qualified privilege, and justification are the most prevalent types, that unintentional defamation is not used at all, and that there has been a noticeable shift from fair comment to honest comment. As for the approach to meaning, the ordinary and natural approach is found to be a pivotal means of solving the threshold problem in defamation cases, that is, whether the words involved are defamatory or not.

show abstract

Reputation, Celebrity and Defamation Law

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

When the litigation winner becomes the loser: undeserving claimants and mitigation of damages in libel claims

When the litigation winner becomes the loser: undeserving claimants and mitigation of damages in libel claims

Data associations and the protection of reputation online in Australia

Defamation case law in Hong Kong: A corpus-based study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About