This book explores recent legislative activity which highlights the phenomenon of "libel tourism," whereby litigants bring libel suits in foreign jurisdictions in order to take advantage of plaintiff-friendly libel laws.

On the lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695, Thomas Macaulay wrote in his History of England, 'English literature was emancipated, and emancipated for ever, from the control of the government'. It's certainly true that the system of prior restraint enshrined in this Restoration measure was now at an end, at least for print. Yet the same cannot be said of government control, which came to operate instead by means of post-publication retribution, not pre-publication licensing, notably for the common-law offence of seditious libel. For many of the authors affected, from Defoe to Cobbett, this new regime was a greater constraint on expression than the old, not least for its alarming unpredictability, and for the spectacular punishment-the pillory-that was sometimes entailed. Yet we may also see the constraint as an energizing force. Throughout the eighteenth century and into the Romantic period, writers developed and refined ingenious techniques for communicating dissident or otherwise contentious meanings while rendering the meanings deniable. As a work of both history and criticism, this book traces the rise and fall of seditious libel prosecution, and with it the theatre of the pillory, while arguing that the period's characteristic forms of literary complexity-ambiguity, ellipsis, indirection, irony-may be traced to the persistence of censorship in the post-licensing world. The argument proceeds through case studies of major poets and prose writers including Dryden, Defoe, Pope, Fielding, Johnson, and Southey, and also calls attention to numerous little-known satires and libels across the extended period.

Should international law be concerned with offence to religions and their followers? Even before the 2005 publication of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, Muslim States have endeavoured to establish some reputational protection for religions on the international level by pushing for recognition of the novel concept of 'defamation of religions'. This study recounts these efforts as well as the opposition they aroused, particularly by proponents of free speech. It also addresses the more fundamental issue of how religion and international law may relate to each other. Historically, enforcing divine commands has been the primary task of legal systems, and it still is in numerous municipal jurisdictions. By analysing religious restrictions of blasphemy and sacrilege as well as international and national norms on free speech and freedom of religion, Lorenz Langer argues that, on the international level at least, religion does not provide a suitable rationale for legal norms.

In her acclaimed 1993 book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt called David Irving, a prolific writer of books on World War II, "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial." The following year, after Lipstadt's book was published in the United Kingdom, Irving filed a libel suit against Lipstadt and her publisher. She prepared her defense with the help of a first-rate team of solicitors, historians, and experts, and a dramatic trial unfolded. Denial, previously published as History on Trial, is Lipstadt's riveting, blow-by-blow account of this singular legal battle, which resulted in a formal denunciation of a Holocaust denier that crippled the movement for years to come. Lipstadt's victory was proclaimed on the front page of major news- papers around the world, such as The Times (UK), which declared that 'history has had its day in court and scored a crushing victory.'"

Landmark Cases in Defamation Law is a diverse and engaging edited collection that brings together eminent scholars from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to analyse cases of enduring significance to defamation law. The cases selected have all had a significant impact on defamation law, not only in the jurisdiction in which they were decided but internationally. Given the formative influence of English defamation law in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the focus is predominantly on English cases, although decisions of the United States and Australia are also included in the collection. The authors all naturally share a common interest in defamation law but bring different expertise and emphasis to their respective chapters. Among the authors are specialists in tort law, legal history and internet law. The cases selected cover all aspects of defamation law, including defamatory capacity and meaning; practice and procedure; defences; and remedies.

This book undertakes a comparative study of the public interest and political speech defences in defamation law, particularly from the perspective of the misuse of democratic free expression justifications. Specifically, it argues that the law and legal approaches taken by leading courts and legislatures in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States - five common law comparators - are undertheorised, lack adequate criteria for determining the correct form of the defence, and would benefit from a more precise understanding of 'democracy', 'accountability', and 'representation'. The book will be of great interest to scholars of free speech, defamation and public law.

Media Law: A Practical Guide (Revised Edition) provides a clear and concise explanation of media law principles. It focuses on the practical aspects of how to protect oneself from claims and how to evaluate the likelihood of a successful claim. This new edition has been revised to reflect important changes and updates to the law, including recent developments relating to scandalous trademarks, embedding, fair use, drones, revenge porn laws, interpretation of emoji, GDPR, false statements laws, lies, and the libel implications of the #MeToo movement. Media Law is divided into five sections that help non-lawyers understand how the principles apply to their actual behavior: background information about the legal system; things you can be sued for; how you actually gather information; ways the government can regulate speech; and practical issues that are related to media law. This book is perfect for courses in media and communications law or a combination course in journalism law and ethics, as it covers both the legal and ethical aspects of communication.

This book undertakes a comparative study of the public interest and political speech defences in defamation law, particularly from the perspective of the misuse of democratic free expression justifications. Specifically, it argues that the law and legal approaches taken by leading courts and legislatures in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States - five common law comparators - are undertheorised, lack adequate criteria for determining the correct form of the defence, and would benefit from a more precise understanding of 'democracy', 'accountability', and 'representation'. The book will be of great interest to scholars of free speech, defamation and public law.

Convicted sexually violent predators are more vilified, more subject to media misrepresentation, and more likely to be denied basic human rights than any other population. Shaming the Constitution authors Michael Perlin and Heather Cucolo question the intentions of sex offender laws, offering new approaches to this most complex (and controversial) area of law and social policy. The authors assert that sex offender laws and policies are unconstitutional and counter-productive. The legislation largely fails to add to public safety-even ruining lives for what are, in some cases, trivial infractions. Shaming the Constitution draws on law, behavioral sciences, and other disciplines to show that many of the "solutions" to penalizing sexually violent predators are "wrong," as they create the most repressive and useless laws. In addition to tracing the history of sex offender laws, the authors address the case of Jesse Timmendequas, whose crime begat "Megan's Law;" the media's role in creating a "moral panic;" recidivism statistics and treatments, as well as international human rights laws. Ultimately, they call attention to the flaws in the system so we can find solutions that contribute to public safety in ways that do not mock Constitutional principles.

Law and Medicine in Revolutionary America: Dissecting the Rush v. Cobbett Trial, 1799 offers the first deep analysis of the most important libel trial in post-revolutionary America and an approach to understanding a much-studied revolutionary figure, Benjamin Rush, in a new light as a legal subject. This libel trial faced off the new nation's most prestigious physician-patriot, Benjamin Rush, against its most popular journalist, William Cobbett, the editor of Porcupine's Gazette. Studied by means of a rare and substantial surviving transcript, the trial features six litigating counsel whose narrative of events and roles provides a unique view of how the revolutionary generation saw itself and the legacy it wished to leave to its progeny. The trial is structured by assaults against medical bleeding and its premier practitioner in yellow fever epidemics of the 1790s in Philadelphia, on the one hand, and castigates the licentiousness of the press in the nation's then-capital city, on the other. As it does so, it exemplifies the much-derided litigiousness of the new nation and the threat of sedition that characterized the development of political parties and the partisan press in late eighteenth-century America.

As Charles Dickens nearly said, 'The law is an asterisk' and in the light of enormously increased public interest in the laws of libel, and the confusions and dramas recently involved, David Hooper's highly readable book will inform and entertain in equal measure. Can you sue for a bad reference, a bouncing cheque or a parking ticket? Are you liable if other people repeat your libel? What do you have to prove to establish libel? The cast-list includes the allegedly boring Ken Barlow, Robert Maxwell, the cuckolded judge in the Alan Clark Diaries, Gillian Taylforth of EastEnders and James Hewitt. There is libel in respect of a Christmas card, the corporation of McDonalds, the House of Nomura, Richard Branson and Jeffrey Archer. In this book, even HELLO magazine gets sued for libel - allegedly.

The modern law of defamation is frequently criticised for being outdated,obscure and even incomprehensible. The Making of the Modern Law of Defamation explains how and why the law has come to be as it is by offering an historical analysis of its development from the seventeenth century to the present day. Whilst the primary focus of the book is the law of England, it also makes extensive use of comparative common law materials from jurisdictions such as Australia, South Africa, the United States and Scotland. This book will be essential reading for anyone interested in the law of defamation, in media law and in the relationship between free speech and the law.

The political libel is as old as politics itself. The politician, seeking redress in the courts for an allegedly libellous publication, uses the English law of libel to attempt to remove the stain from his character. Wielding the 'sword of truth' he does battle with the media, often with huge attendant publicity, and at great risk to his reputation should he fail in his quest. At the same time he stands to pocket a substantial sum in damages if he can show the libel to have been committed.

In this, the first modern study of the phenomenon of political libels, the author delves behind the headlines and looks at the political and legal problems which surround this little understood but controversial area of English law. In this highly readable and engaging work the author surveys the ancient and modern history of the political libel laws, and argues that the English law of libel has in the main been too jealous of defending the reputations of politicians and insufficiently alert to the legitimate interest of the public. A strong case is made for reforming the law substantially, a case which rests both on the experience of other countries (notably the USA), and also on a re-examination of a handful of English cases dating from the mid-to-late nineteenth century whose significance has been downplayed by lawyers in subsequent years.

Convicted sexually violent predators are more vilified, more subject to media misrepresentation, and more likely to be denied basic human rights than any other population. Shaming the Constitution authors Michael Perlin and Heather Cucolo question the intentions of sex offender laws, offering new approaches to this most complex (and controversial) area of law and social policy. The authors assert that sex offender laws and policies are unconstitutional and counter-productive. The legislation largely fails to add to public safety-even ruining lives for what are, in some cases, trivial infractions. Shaming the Constitution draws on law, behavioral sciences, and other disciplines to show that many of the "solutions" to penalizing sexually violent predators are "wrong," as they create the most repressive and useless laws. In addition to tracing the history of sex offender laws, the authors address the case of Jesse Timmendequas, whose crime begat "Megan's Law;" the media's role in creating a "moral panic;" recidivism statistics and treatments, as well as international human rights laws. Ultimately, they call attention to the flaws in the system so we can find solutions that contribute to public safety in ways that do not mock Constitutional principles.

In the years following the landmark United States Supreme Court decision on libel law in New York Times v. Sullivan, the court ruled on a number of additional cases that continued to shape the standards of protected speech. As part of this key series of judgments, the justices explored the contours of the Sullivan ruling and established the definition of ""reckless disregard"" as it pertains to ""actual malice"" in the case of St. Amant v. Thompson. While an array of scholarly and legal literature examines Sullivan and some subsequent cases, the St. Amant case- once called ""the most important of the recent Supreme Court libel decisions""- has not received the attention it warrants. Eric P. Robinson's Reckless Disregard corrects this omission with a thorough analysis of the case and its ramifications. The history of St. Amant v. Thompson begins with the contentious 1962 U.S. Senate primary election in Louisiana, between incumbent Russell Long and businessman Philemon ""Phil"" A. St. Amant. The initial lawsuit stemmed from a televised campaign address in which St. Amant attempted to demonstrate Long's alleged connections with organized crime and corrupt union officials. Although St. Amant's claims had no effect on the outcome of the election, a little-noticed statement he made during the address- that money had ""passed hands"" between Baton Rouge Teamsters leader Ed Partin and East Baton Rouge Parish deputy sheriff Herman A. Thompson- led to a defamation lawsuit that ultimately passed through the legal system to the Supreme Court. A decisive step in the journey toward the robust protections that American courts provide to comments about public officials, public figures, and matters of public interest, St. Amant v. Thompson serves as a significant development in modern American defamation law. Robinson's study deftly examines the background of the legal proceedings as well as their social and political context. His analysis of how the Supreme Court ruled in this case reveals the justices' internal deliberations, shedding new light on a judgment that forever changed American libel law.

The law of defamation contemplates the clash of two fundamental rights: the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the media, and the right to reputation. The rules of defamation law are designed to mediate between these two rights. The central proposition that this book makes is that defamation law needs to be reformed to balance the conflicting rights. This discussion flows from a theoretical analysis of the rights in issue; the value underlying the right to reputation that has most resonance is human dignity, while the value that is most apposite to freedom of expression in this context is the argument that free speech is integral to democracy. The argument from democracy emphasizes that speech on matters of public interest should receive greater protection than private speech. This book argues that fundamental rules of defamation law need to be reformed to take into account the dual importance of public interest speech on the one hand, and the right to human dignity on the other. In particular, the presumptions that defamatory allegations are false and have caused damage, the principle of strict liability to primary publishers and negligence liability to secondary publishers, and the availability of punitive damages, should not survive constitutional scrutiny. The quantum of damages and costs rules, and the remedies available in defamation cases, should also be reformed to reflect the importance of dignity to the claimant, and the free speech interest of the public in receiving accurate information on matters of public interest.

This volume deals with vital issues on freedom of expression and freedom of information and emphasizes the importance of the free exchange and dissemination of ideas and of open, and therefore more accountable, government. It notes the ways in which these freedoms have received recent legislative attention in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Bill.

Media and entertainment law is one of the fastest growing sectors of practice in the UK and European Community. Practising lawyers are hungry for information and informed analysis of the latest developments in this fast-moving field. This Yearbook spans the traditional concerns of media lawyers such as free speech and freedom of the press generally, including libel law and contempt of court as well as the core areas of entertainment law practice such as copyright, contracts, licensing and competition. In addition it covers the emerging fields of new technologies, the impact of the much heralded `information highway' upon media law, the effects of European Community initiatives in this area and the ever changing subject of broadcasting regulation. The Yearbook consists of high-quality analytical articles, important annual surveys of developments in all these fields and reviews of recent publications, all of which will be of interest to the practising and academic lawyer.

Landmark Cases in Defamation Law is a diverse and engaging edited collection that brings together eminent scholars from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to analyse cases of enduring significance to defamation law. The cases selected have all had a significant impact on defamation law, not only in the jurisdiction in which they were decided but internationally. Given the formative influence of English defamation law in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the focus is predominantly on English cases, although decisions of the United States and Australia are also included in the collection. The authors all naturally share a common interest in defamation law but bring different expertise and emphasis to their respective chapters. Among the authors are specialists in tort law, legal history and internet law. The cases selected cover all aspects of defamation law, including defamatory capacity and meaning; practice and procedure; defences; and remedies.