Libel Law
Group Libel
Joseph Tanenhaus
Volume 35, Issue 2Winter 1950
Cornell Law Review
Group libel is a rag-bag phrase used to include a wide range of critical comment that particular groups find objectionable.[1]
In broad terms, group libel laws may be said to be enactments whereby the publishers and disseminators of statements that tend to disparage racial and religious groups are rendered legally responsible for their actions. [1]
Legislation of this nature is by definition a restriction on the freedom of discussion. To curtail criticism, however virulent and ill-tempered, is a step so serious as to be taken only if investigation discloses that substantially more good than evil would result by so proceeding.[1]
The law of libel offers both a civil and a criminal remedy for group defamation. A civil action can arise in two distinct ways. First, a suit can be brought by a member of the group defamed. In the early years of the seventeenth century one Lacy referred to the seventeen men against whom he was then engaged in a law suit as those "that helped to murther Henry Farrer."(Foxcraft v. Lacy, HOBART 89a, 80 Eng. Rep. 239, 1613).[1]
Richard Dawkins:
Keep Libel Laws OUT of Science
None of the men was named. The King's Bench, upholding a lower court judgment for Mr. Foxcraft, ruled that each one of the seventeen had as much cause for individual action as if each had actually been named.*[1]
*Source: Sumner v. Buel, 12 Johns. 475 (N.Y. 1815); Ellis v. Kimball, 16 Pick. 132 (Mass.
1834); Ryckman v. Delavan, 25 Wend. 186 (N.Y. 1840); Le Fanu v. Malcomson, 1
H. C. L. 637, 9 Eng. Rep. 910 (1848); Eastwood v. Holmes, 1 F. & F. 347, 175 Eng. Rep.
758 (1858).
Since criminal libel is indictable at common law because it tends so to inflame men as to result in a breach of the peace, there is no rational basis for the exclusion of group defamers from liability to prosecution in common law jurisdictions.(In most of the states statutes defining criminal libel no longer refer specifically to breaches of the peace. See note 67 infra.) [1]
Libel law and libel chill
in Canada
The consideration of major importance is not whether the defamed is likely to lose the respect of his fellow men and consequently suffer economic harm, but whether the safety and good
order of the community may be jeopardized. Defamation of racial and religious groups certainly has this latter tendency. Nevertheless, prosecutions for group defamation, despite frequent endorsement through dicta, have been extremely unusual." * [1]
* Source: Prosecutions for the libeling of individuals could hardly be considered common. The
FouRTH DEca imI_ DIGEST, covering the years from 1926-1936, lists but fifty-two instances
of criminal prosecutions for libel. More recently there have been even fewer. The GENEmZ
DIGEsT lists 2 for 1943, 0 for 1944, 2 for 1945, 2 for 1946, 0 for 1947, and 1 for 1948.
Keep Libel Laws OUT of Science
in Canada
50th Anniversary
of New York Times v. Sullivan
of New York Times v. Sullivan
A Defense
of
The Annenberg Libel Reform Proposal
Rodney A. Smolla
1989
The case for reforming the law of libel is familiar, and fundamentally sound. The question posed by The Annenberg Washington Program's reform proposal is not whether libel law should be reformed, but whether the proposal contains the right reforms.[2]
The argument favoring reform is the most compelling if one strives to look at the current system objectively and neutrally, without a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant bias. [2]
Simon Singh Wins Landmark Libel Ruling
If one were starting from scratch to design the "perfect" legal mechanism for handling
libel disputes, one would never arrive at the current system.[2]
It is costly, cumbersome, and fails to vindicate either free speech values or the protection
of reputation. [2]
The enormous defense costs of protracted litigation exert a chilling effect on the
press, while plaintiffs are left with no meaningful legal remedy for reputational injury.[2]
Saskatchewan in Canada
In an action for libel or slander the plaintiff may aver that the words or matter complained of were used in a defamatory sense, specifying the defamatory sense, without any prefatory averment to show how the words or matter were used in that sense, and the averment shall be put in issue by the denial of the alleged libel or slander; and, where the words or matter set forth with or without the alleged meaning show a cause of action, the statement of claim shall be sufficient.(R.S.S. 1978, c.L-14, s.3.)[3]
In an action for libel or slander, where the defendant has pleaded a denial of the
alleged libel or slander only or has suffered judgment by default or judgment has
been given against him on motion for judgment on the pleadings, he may give in
evidence in mitigation of damages that he made or offered a written or printed
apology to the plaintiff before the commencement of the action; or, if the action was
commenced before there was an opportunity of making or offering such apology,
that he did so as soon afterwards as he had an opportunity.(R.S.S. 1978, c.L-14, s.4.) [3]
A Saskatchewan Crown prosecutor has won a $50,000 defamation lawsuit against a blogger who is a former member of the provincial legislature.[4]
In a recent decision, Queen's Bench Justice Allisen Rothery ruled that Gay Caswell defamed prosecutor Wayne Buckle in her blog, "Mrs. Gay Caswell's Blog."[4]
Buckle is a senior Crown prosecutor working in the La Ronge district office for Saskatchewan Justice.[4]
Caswell, who lives in Brabant Lake in the province's north, is a former Progressive Conservative politician who represented the Saskatoon Westmount constituency from 1982 to 1986. [4]
Buckle's lawyer argued Caswell libelled Buckle in March by alleging he "grows and uses marijuana, uses cocaine, has misappropriated funds, been disbarred as a member of the Law Society of Saskatchewan, has breached the public trust and misused his office and is a dishonest and despicable person," the decision said.[4]
"In this case, Buckle has proved that the words written in Caswell's blog are defamatory," Rothery wrote in the decision. "That can be determined from the ordinary meaning of the published words."[4]
Expression which tends to lower a person's reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or to expose a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, is defamatory. Expression which would cause a person to be shunned or avoided is also defamatory.[5]
McConchie and Potts, "Canadian Libel and Slander Actions", Chapter Fifteen, “Defamatory Meaning,” at page 289[5]
Defamation law engages two basic values in Canadian democracy - protection of reputation and freedom of expression. The line between defensible and indefensible expression is often difficult to discern. There are many traps for the unwary in this esoteric area of the law. [5]
Ezra Levant Sued For Libel By Saskatchewan Lawyer Khurrum Awan.[6]
TORONTO - Sun News Network host Ezra Levant caused "tremendous" damage to a Saskatchewan lawyer with blog posts labelling him a jihadist and a liar, the lawyer alleged Monday as his defamation lawsuit against the controversial media personality went to trial.[6]
Khurrum Awan was completing his articling and looking for work as a lawyer when he alleges the most egregious libels were posted. He is seeking $100,000 in damages.[6]
Woman's Defamation Suit
Against Cosby Gets Tossed
Levant's posts on his personal blog centred around Awan's testimony at a British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal case about a complaint over an article in Maclean's magazine from 2006, titled "The future belongs to Islam." Awan was a law student when the article was published and was one of a group of students who said they were concerned the article was Islamophobic.[6]
Judge Dismisses Defamation Suit
Against Bill Cosby
Awan's lawyer Brian Shiller says Levant's statements included labelling Awan a jihadist, an anti-Semite, a liar, a perjurer and alleging that he acted in a conflict of interest.[6]
They were made in the context of Levant trying to discredit human rights tribunals, which the host refers to as kangaroo courts, Shiller said.[6]
Judge Says Cosby Accusers' Libel Suit
Can Go On - Newsy
Against Cosby Gets Tossed
Against Bill Cosby
Can Go On - Newsy
Saletan:
Palin's Own Blood Libel
Against Muslims
Neon Tommy
January 12, 2011
A statement issued Wednesday by former Alaska Governor and unsuccessful vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, referring to criticism of her as a "blood libel," has stirred a hornets' nest of negative reaction.[7]
Blood libel is a term historically reserved for the medieval practice of blaming Jews for using the blood of Christian babies to make matzoh. While reaction to Palin's words have been fierce from several Jewish organizations, one of the most biting responses comes from Slate columnist Bill Saletan.[7]
Muslim group proceeds with libel suit against Stephen Harper and spokesman over ‘terrorist’ comment
The Canadian Press
Mon., May 26, 2014
OTTAWA—A national Muslim council is proceeding with a lawsuit against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his chief spokesman for allegedly linking the organization to a terrorist group.[8]
The National Council of Canadian Muslims has filed a statement of claim in Ontario Superior Court after failing to get an apology from the Prime Minister’s Office.[8]
The council is seeking a public retraction, damages of up to $100,000 and a permanent injunction preventing the words from being republished, the statement of claim says.[8]
stupid libel laws (15Dec09)
Obama’s Assault
On The First Amendment
Andrew C. McCarthy
October 1, 2008
Stifling political debate with threats of prosecution is not the "rule of law" -- it's tyranny
.[9]
In London last week, a frightful warning was sounded about encroaching tyranny.[9]
At an important conference, speaker after impassioned speaker warned of the peril to Western values posed by freedom-devouring sharia — the Islamic legal code. [9]
Like all tyrannies, sharia’s first target is speech: Suppress all examination of Muslim radicalism by threats of prosecution and libel actions, and smugly call it “the rule of law.” But we may already be further gone than the London conferees feared. [9]
And without resort to the Islamicization that so startled them. For that, we can thank the campaign of Barack Obama.[9]
I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.[9]
We London conferees were fretting over speech codes, “hate speech” restrictions, “Islamophobia” provisions, and “libel tourism” — the use of less journalist-friendly defamation laws in foreign jurisdictions to eviscerate our First Amendment freedom to report, for example, on the nexus between ostensible Islamic charity and the funding of terrorist operations.[9]
All the while, in St. Louis, local law-enforcement authorities, dominated by Democrat-party activists, were threatening libel prosecutions against Obama’s political opposition. [9]
County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, abetted by a local sheriff and encouraged by the Obama campaign, warned that members of the public who dared speak out against Obama during the campaign’s crucial final weeks would face criminal libel charges — if, in the judgment of these conflicted officials, such criticism of their champion was “false.”[9]
The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned. [9]
Rise of the superinjunction
- libel, privacy and press freedom
under fire in the UK
- libel, privacy and press freedom
under fire in the UK
