Suchergebnisse

The law of defamation is not new to the world, nor limited to certain nations: Moses commanded: "Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour." The Far East punished slander. The Twelve Tables of Rome recognized defamation. Early Anglo- Saxon and Germanic laws took a serious view of insult by word or gesture. Punishment included excision of the tongue. In England, a book on libel was written three hundred years ago. Under a French ordinance of the past century the publication of a libel was punished by whipping and on a second offence with death. ' Obviously, the consequences -have changed over the years, but the basic responsibility is still present. The early development of the law of defamation dealt largely with slander, and with libel in a very limited context - mostly in relation to letters and other similar communications. The advent of the printing press and the rise of newspapers saw the law flourish and grow into the large body of doctrine that we know today. The advent of modem means of telecommunication brought the scope of that law to unthought of application in the modem world. This article will examine the nature of the medium and the application of the centuries old concepts of defamation to radio and television broadcasting. The article is by no means exhaustive, as to cover every aspect of defamation and its application to broadcasting would be a phenomenal task. Instead, several aspects of the law will be examined to see how the courts adapted the old concepts to the new medium and to point out any needed changes in the law. The relevant legislation in the area and the special problems arising in a federal state will be examined, namely the constitutional and conflict of laws problems.

Young journalists and who aspire to enter the trade are too often unaware of the legal risks they face. Understanding defamation law is a vital part of being a reporter. Journalists want to publish interesting and important stories. To do this, they often have to include information that individuals or companies dislike because it casts them in a bad light. The threat of a defamation action has often been used to stifle unwanted publicity even when the information is true. Accuracy and facts are essential. Journalists need to know how to present information. Here, Phippen discusses UK's defamation law. Adapted from the source document.

Neslavas celšana ir noziedzīgs nodarījums, kas ir regulēts Krimināllikuma 157.pantā. Šajā tiesību institūtā saduras divas pretējas, bet tomēr savstarpēji saistītas cilvēktiesības – tiesības uz vārda brīvību un tiesības uz privāto dzīvi. Sabiedrībā vēl aizvien nav vienotas izpratnes par vārda brīvības lomu demokrātiskā valsts iekārtā un tās attaisnojamo ierobežošanu, līdz ar to vairums cilvēku, kas publiski ir pauduši informāciju, nemaz neapzinās, ka tas ir uzskatāms par apzināti nepatiesu, otru personu apkaunojošu izdomājumu tīšu izplatīšanu. Arī Latvijas juridiskajā literatūrā diemžēl trūkst plašu pētījumu gan no valodnieku un sociālo antropologu, gan no tiesību zinātnieku puses. Šī darba pamatnostādne ir neslavas celšanas pētījums Latvijas tiesībās, aplūkojot gan teoriju, gan tiesu praksi, kā arī ieskats ārvalstu tiesībās. ; Defamation is a crime, which is regulated in Article 157 of the Crimal Law. There ar two opposed, but in the same time interrelated human rights – freedom of speech and right to respect for private life. Still there is no unified conception about the role of freedom of speech in democracy and its justifiable infringement, therefore a vast majority of people, who have expressed an information in public, are unaware, that it may be considered as a knowingly committed intentional distribution of fictions, knowing them to be untrue and defamatory of another person. Unfortunately, there is a lack of a comprehensive research from both legal scholars, linguists and social anthropoligists in legal literature of Latvia. The main approach in this research is to examine defamation in the laws of Latvia, from both theoretical and practical point of view, as well as from the position of foreign countries.

Given the broad meaning of publication in defamation law, internet intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines, and social media companies may be liable for defamatory content posted by third parties. This article argues that current law is not suitable to dealing with issues of internet defamation and intermediary responsibility because it is needlessly complex, confusing, and may impose liability without blameworthiness. Instead, the article proposes that publication be redefined to require a deliberate act of communicating specific words. This would better reflect blameworthiness and few intermediaries would be liable in defamation under this test. That said, intermediaries profit from content, and they have the capacity and flexibility to respond to defamation in a way that courts cannot. The paper therefore also proposes a regulatory framework called notice-and-notice-plus. This would require intermediaries to forward a notice of complaint to content creators, and only to remove content in limited circumstances.