Search results

IN the absence of a comprehensive judicial pronouncement it is difficult to define a libel. It has been defined as “a writing tending to injure and degrade the character of the person who is the object of it” (Lord Campbell) and also as “a publication without justification or excuse, which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, ridicule or contempt” (Baron Parke). The material part of a cause of action in libel is not the writing but the publication of the libel. “Publication” means “the making known the defamatory matter after it has been written to some person other than the person of whom it is written” (Pullman v. Hill and Co. [1891] 1 Q.B. 527). Again, in Hulton & Co. v. Jones ([1910] A.C.23), Lord Loreburn said “Libel is a tortious act. It consists in using language which others knowing the circumstances would reasonably think to be defamatory of the person complaining of and injured by it.”

Internet defamation litigation is not the same as traditional libel litigation. Unique challenges facing plaintiffs seeking a remedy for destroyed goodwill of a business or damage to reputation include: anonymity of the author responsible for the defamation, cost of successfully tracking down the defendant and jurisdiction issues. This article considers certain legal issues raised by these unique problems and the efficacy of solutions offered in countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.

Historians have long understood that transforming people into property was the defining characteristic of Atlantic World slavery. This chapter examines litigation in British colonial Vice Admiralty Courts in order to show how English legal categories and procedures facilitated this process of dehumanization. In colonies where people were classified as chattel property, litigants transformed local Vice Admiralty Courts into slave courts by analogizing human beings to ships and cargo. Doing so made sound economic sense from their perspective; it gave colonists instant access to an early modern English legal system that was centered on procedures and categories. But for people of African descent, it had decidedly negative consequences. Indeed, when colonists treated slaves as property, they helped to create a world in which Africans were not just like things, they were things. Through the very act of categorization, they rendered factual what had been a mere supposition: that Africans were less than human.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of the rule of law, corporate governance and freedom of expression on the effectiveness of whistleblowing initiatives. This study interrogates the effectiveness of whistleblowing as a tool in combating economic and financial crimes, in political and corporate environments where good governance and the rule of law are firmly established and enforceable and where defamation is decriminalised.

The author conducted a comprehensive review of relevant textbooks, focusing on legal theories and concepts related to the research topic. This study analysed scholarly journal articles to gain insights into the current debates and research gaps. The author discussed seminal court decisions that have influenced the legal landscape pertaining to the research topic and reviewed newspaper publications to understand public opinion and societal implications related to the research topic.

To ensure effective whistleblowing as a tool of gathering information in combating economic and financial crime, good governance must be promoted, supremacy of law must be upheld, freedom of expression must be safeguarded and defamation must be criminalised.

This paper addresses a significant gap in the literature by examining the impact of criminal libel on whistleblowing, an area that has received limited attention in previous studies. The findings of this study have significant implications for policymakers, as they shed light on importance of the rule of law, good governance, freedom of speech and decriminalisation of defamation on effective implementation of an effective whistleblowing laws and policies.

With a focus on Canada, but framed by similar and shared concerns emerging in the United States, this chapter examines the current status of what constitutes and defines academic freedom for academic librarians and the rights and the protections individual, professional academic librarians have with respect to the freedom of speech and expression of their views in speech and writing within and outside of their institutions. It reviews the historical background of academic freedom and librarianship in Canada, academic freedom language in collective agreements, rights legislation in Canada versus the United States as it pertains to academic librarianship, and rights statements supported by Canadian associations in the library field and associations representing members in postsecondary institutions. The implications of academic librarians using the new communication technologies and social media platforms, such as blogs and networking sites, with respect to academic freedom are examined, as well as, an overview of recent attacks on the academic freedom of academic librarians in the United States and Canada. Included in this analysis are the results of a survey of Canadian academic librarians, which examined attitudes about academic freedom, the external and internal factors which have an impact on academic freedom, and the professional use of new communication technologies and social media platforms.

January 27, 1967 Master and servant — Maintenance of suit — Trade union's paid officials — Defamation action — Circular to union members containing allegations that officials unfit to be employed by union — Legal assistance to officials for libel actions out of union funds — Whether maintenance — No express power in union rules — Express provision for payment of legal assistance confined to subscribing members — Whether reasonable for good employer to support litigation — Whether implied power to support officials' litigation.

June 16, 1967 Master and Servant — Maintenance of suit — Trade union's paid officials — Defamation action — Union's legal assistance to officials for libel action — Whether maintenance — No express power to pay officials' costs in union rules — Whether fairly ancillary to work of servants and business of union.

Two speakers at Online 95 spoke on the contentious subjects of censorship and other ethical matters on the Internet. Charles Oppenheim, then of the University of Strathclyde, talked about three problem areas on the Internet that are difficult to police — pornography; copyright and moral rights infringement; and libel and slander. He also cited some examples of each. Michael Dahan of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and of the Israel Democracy Institute, then talked about the censorship imposed on the Internet by the secret service in Israel — a country that is understandably more security conscious than many in the West.

Candida Shallow: What are you doing, Daddy?