All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

The “Neutral Reportage" Doctrine in English Law
Unformatted Document Text:  1 Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment ix (2007). 2 Bruce W. Sanford, Libel and Privacy § 1-1 (2d ed. 2008). 3 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 4 Id. at 279-80. 5 Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1298 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 825 (1988). 6 Edwards v. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, 5566 F.2d 113 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Edwards v. New York Times Co., 434 U.S. 1002 (1977). 7 Young v. Morning Journal, 25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1024, 1027 (Ohio 1996) (Douglas, J., dissenting). 8 Kyu Ho Youm, “Recent Rulings Weaken Neutral Reportage Defense,” 27 Newspaper Research Journal 58, 69 (winter 2006). 9 See Bennett v. Columbia University, 34 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2202 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Los Angeles County) (May 15, 2006) (refusing to apply neutral report because neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the California Supreme Court has recognized it). 10 David A. Elder, “Truth, Accuracy and Neutral Reportage: Beheading the Media Jabberwock’s Attempt to Circumvent New York Times v. Sullivan,” 9 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 551, 645 (2007). 11 See generally Youm, supra note 8. 12 Roberts v. Gable [2007] EWCA Civ. 721, ¶ 25 (Ward, L.J.). 13 Argentina has adopted neutral reportage as a libel defense. See It’s a Crime: How Insult Laws Stifle Press Freedom 177 (Marilyn Greene ed., 2007). See also Horacio Verbitsky, “Restricting News Through Insult Laws,” in New Code Words for Censorship: Modern Labels for Curbs on the Press 112 (Marilyn Greene ed., 2000). Spain seems to be another country that recognizes neutral reportage. See Almudena Arpon de Mendivil & Santiago Lardies, in International Libel & Privacy Handbook 296, 302 (Charles J. Glasser Jr. ed., 2006). 14 Roberts v. Gable [2006] EMLR 23, ¶ 16 (Eady, J.). 15 [2006] U.K.H.L. 44. 16 [2002] EMLR 13. 17 Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL, “Case for the Appellant, “ in Bound Volume Petition of Appeal, Statement of Facts and Issues, Case for the Appellant, Case for Respondents, Appendix Part I, Index to Authorities (2005), at 80-81. The author owes a gratitude to the leading U.K. media lawyer Mark Stephens in London for facilitating his timely access to the appellate brief in Jameel in March 2007. 18 Roberts v. Gable [2007] EWCA Civ. 721, ¶ 68. 19 Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 1: 9.50 (2d ed. 2008). 20 Id. See also James C. Goodale, “Big Media Gets Help from an Unexpected Source,” New York Law Journal, Dec. 1, 2006, at 1 (noting that Jameel “appears to have liberalized U.K. libel laws much the same way the Supreme Court in its famous Sullivan case”). Goodale refers to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 21 Gantry Constr. Co. v. Am. Pipe & Constr. Co., 122 Cal. Rptr. 834 (1975). 22 David A. Elder, Defamation: A Lawyer’s Guide § 2:4 (2008) (citation omitted). 23 See, e.g., Cepeda v. Cowles Magazines & Broad., Inc., 38 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 844 (1964); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 24 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 (1977). 25 Elder, Defamation, supra note 22, § 3:1 (2007) (citations omitted). 26 W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 115, at 831-32 (5th ed. 1984)

Authors: youm, kyu ho.
first   previous   Page 33 of 37   next   last



background image
1
Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment ix
(2007).
2
Bruce W. Sanford, Libel and Privacy § 1-1 (2d ed. 2008).
3
376 U.S. 254 (1964).
4
Id. at 279-80.
5
Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., 838 F.2d 1287, 1298 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 825
(1988).
6
Edwards v. Nat’l Audubon Soc’y, 5566 F.2d 113 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Edwards v. New
York Times Co., 434 U.S. 1002 (1977).
7
Young v. Morning Journal, 25 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1024, 1027 (Ohio 1996) (Douglas, J.,
dissenting).
8
Kyu Ho Youm, “Recent Rulings Weaken Neutral Reportage Defense,” 27 Newspaper Research
Journal 58, 69 (winter 2006).
9
See Bennett v. Columbia University, 34 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2202 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Los Angeles
County) (May 15, 2006) (refusing to apply neutral report because neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor
the California Supreme Court has recognized it).
10
David A. Elder, “Truth, Accuracy and Neutral Reportage: Beheading the Media Jabberwock’s
Attempt to Circumvent New York Times v. Sullivan,” 9 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and
Technology Law
551, 645 (2007).
11
See generally Youm, supra note 8.
12
Roberts v. Gable [2007] EWCA Civ. 721, ¶ 25 (Ward, L.J.).
13
Argentina has adopted neutral reportage as a libel defense. See It’s a Crime: How Insult Laws Stifle
Press Freedom 177 (Marilyn Greene ed., 2007). See also Horacio Verbitsky, “Restricting News
Through Insult Laws,” in New Code Words for Censorship: Modern Labels for Curbs on the Press 112
(Marilyn Greene ed., 2000). Spain seems to be another country that recognizes neutral reportage. See
Almudena Arpon de Mendivil & Santiago Lardies, in International Libel & Privacy Handbook 296,
302 (Charles J. Glasser Jr. ed., 2006).
14
Roberts v. Gable [2006] EMLR 23, ¶ 16 (Eady, J.).
15
[2006] U.K.H.L. 44.
16
[2002] EMLR 13.
17
Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL, “Case for the Appellant, “ in Bound Volume Petition of
Appeal, Statement of Facts and Issues, Case for the Appellant, Case for Respondents, Appendix Part I,
Index to Authorities (2005), at 80-81. The author owes a gratitude to the leading U.K. media lawyer
Mark Stephens in London for facilitating his timely access to the appellate brief in Jameel in March
2007.
18
Roberts v. Gable [2007] EWCA Civ. 721, ¶ 68.
19
Rodney A. Smolla, Law of Defamation § 1: 9.50 (2d ed. 2008).
20
Id. See also James C. Goodale, “Big Media Gets Help from an Unexpected Source,” New York Law
Journal, Dec. 1, 2006, at 1 (noting that Jameel “appears to have liberalized U.K. libel laws much the
same way the Supreme Court in its famous Sullivan case”). Goodale refers to the landmark U.S.
Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,
21
Gantry Constr. Co. v. Am. Pipe & Constr. Co., 122 Cal. Rptr. 834 (1975).
22
David A. Elder, Defamation: A Lawyer’s Guide § 2:4 (2008) (citation omitted).
23
See, e.g., Cepeda v. Cowles Magazines & Broad., Inc., 38 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S.
844 (1964); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
24
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 (1977).
25
Elder, Defamation, supra note 22, § 3:1 (2007) (citations omitted).
26
W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts, § 115, at 831-32 (5th ed. 1984)


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 33 of 37   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.