Defamation and free speech in New South Wales: truth, justice or the American way.
Read Online

Defamation and free speech in New South Wales: truth, justice or the American way. by Alister A.* Henskens

  • 941 Want to read
  • ·
  • 1 Currently reading

Published .
Written in English

Book details:

The Physical Object
Pagination230 leaves
Number of Pages230
ID Numbers
Open LibraryOL18807514M

Download Defamation and free speech in New South Wales: truth, justice or the American way.


The amendments implement the Model Defamation Amendment Provisions which are the product of a review and public consultation by the Defamation Working Party, driven by the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice, and were formally agreed by . In delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court in New York Times Co v Sullivan, Justice Brennan emphasised that Aspects of the Law of Defamation in New South Wales () at xliii. 5. give way to the need to protect the reputations of members of the the appropriate balance to be struck between free speech and reputation depends upon. to thank Professor Walker and Mr Justice Heerey for their comments. I M King, 'Lavarch Calls for National Libel Law', Australian, 17 May See generally the transcript of the Uniform Defamation Code Seminar held at Sydney on 26 November Attorneys-General of New South Wales, Queensland and Victori*, Reform of'Defa-. “Don Burke is a resident in New South Wales. Sydney is regarded as a defamation capital of the world, so there is a greater risk that he would sue,” the lawyer stated. Defamation laws. Defamation laws in the United States require public figures to prove not only that a defamatory imputation is false, but that it was published maliciously.

  Inforrm reported on a large number of defamation cases from around the world in Following my widely read posts on and defamation cases, this is my personal selection of the most legally and factually interesting cases from England, Australia and the United States from the past year.. Please add, by way of comments, cases from other jurisdictions which you think should be added. The law of defamation is designed to protect an individual’s reputation, while still maintaining the right to free speech. In South Australia it is governed by the common law and the Defamation usly, defamation was divided into two categories – libel and slander – but now it is all called defamation. Similarly, in Australia, Robert Pullan has recently published a book (Guilty Secrets: Free Speech in Australia (North Ryde, )) in which he finds not only the obscenity laws but also the defamation and sedition laws so repugnant, he would throw them all out. But while it is thought that even the most open-minded people would draw the line.   Bartlett says the ongoing moves, spearheaded by the Attorney-Generals of Australia and New South Wales, to overhaul the country’s defamation laws are a welcome sign: ‘This has the support of media companies and many lawyers,’ he says. ‘There is far more attention being given in Australia to the erosion of freedom of speech over recent.

It is clear from the extrinsic materials available that, despite its altered wording, section 26 was not intended to effect any substantive change in the operation of the defence of contextual truth in New South Wales. In his Second Reading Speech introducing the NSW Act, Attorney-General, Bob Debus said: “Clause 26 provides for a defence of. of speech, or of the press’. In the , the US Supreme Court determined that that English common law of defamation whereby, as a general rule, publishers can be required to prove the truth of any defamatory allegation they publish, that was inherited by the US resulted in a ‘chilling effect’ that was an impermissible infringement of free. In short, Socrates believed justice provides a good way to be, and all good things flow from this way of being. Paul Stearns, Texas Justice – the quality of being morally just – is the most important quality because it is only through the application of justice that freedom, happiness and truth can exist. In his dissenting judgment in Gallagher, Justice Murphy stated that the offence is so ‘vague and general that it is an oppressive limitation on free speech’. 30 In light of this, he supported the higher threshold test used in the United States, that the ‘substantive evil be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high.