Media Law: Defamation, Copyright, Etc

What does freedom of expression really mean? Why is it important to our democratic society? In the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra (1990), the issues of freedom of expression

Defamation mean damage to the character or notoriety of somebody, specifically created by the false proclamation or demonstration of another. The Connecticut District Court ruled to support Swift Transportation Incorporation for two reasons. To begin with, there was no motivation behind why manager realism in regards to worker references ought not be shielded from criticism suits when it happens on the site since it was just as essential as it would be one-on-one dialog.

Increasingly, the internet is notably used as a weapon of discontent where active users need to be much more mindful of what they post online as they decide to air out their dirty laundry on Twitter, Facebook or any social platform of their choice. In the last year alone, the United Kingdom has seen a 23% increase in defamation cases due to the rise of social media.

This research paper will explore some of the ins and outs of what “defamation of character” is and what legal liabilities can come from defaming a person or persons. We will also explore the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as it comes to what responsibility, if any, is held by proprietors and curators of websites that allow/encourage slanderous conversation. We will be examining Sarah Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment, LLC (Jones v. Thedirty.com) to help answer the questions: what legal liabilities can come from defaming a person or persons, and does a proprietor/curator of a website have any legal responsibility when it comes to

There has always been a need for communication between people, and a need to communicate

In order to rebut the statements made against him/her, he/she would have the ability to access a large audience by either; holding a press conference, issuing a statement to the press, making a public statement, or otherwise responding to the defamations. Of course, he/she could also bring a defamation claim against the speaker in court, but he/she would then have to prove actual malice. The initial defamatory statements and the subsequent rebuttal, given by a well-known public figure, would garner the attention of similar audiences. It is due to this attention that the Court rightly included this element in the public figure test; lawsuits brought by those who have been defamed may only be seen as an undesirable alternative means for redress if they are capable of responding to the defamatory remarks outside of court, and are able to mitigate the damages caused by the statements by doing so. The Supreme Court’s position in Gertz, keeping in mind this same archetypal defamation claim, should be understood as aiming to bolster public speech, debate, and the contribution of new ideas into the marketplace of ideas and further striving to avoid the chilling of any type of speech that could be the result of self-censorship. The Court wanted to

Bennett, W.L. & Manheim, J. B. (2006) The one-Step Flow of Communication. The Annals of the Ammerican Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol, 608.

The four elements of defamation are: (1) publication of a false statement of fact by third party (2) that was defamatory concerning the plaintiff (3) with the requisite degree of fault and (4) damages, in some cases. This type of action would most likely not be appropriate

Communication is about how we interact and exchange information with other people. It is a two-way process which includes giving information to someone and receiving information from people (Middleton, 2004)

Do you agree with this statement? Discuss the statement in terms of a communication model/s. (20 marks)

In general, communication means of connecting people or places. In business, it is a key function of management, which is an organization cannot operate without communication between level, departments and employees” (Business Dictionary, 2017). Also, ”communication is the act of conveying information for the purpose of creating a shared understanding. It is something that humans do every day. The word communication comes from Latin “communis,” meaning “to share,” and includes verbal, non-verbal and electronic means of human interaction” (Communication Study, 2017). “Scholars who study communication analyze the development of communication skills in humans and theorize about how communication can be made more effective.” (Communication Study, 2017). “Humans convey information through a variety of methods such as speaking, telephones, e-mails, blogs, television, art, hand gestures, facial expressions, body language and even social contexts” (Communication Study, 2017). One of the most form of communication that is being used right now is through text messaging and the cyber world. Communication can occur right away in closed, intimate setting over great periods of time in astronomically immense public forums. However, all forms of communication require the same fundamental elements, a verbalizer or sender of information, a message, and an audience or recipient. The sender and recipient must withal share a prevalent language or designates of understanding each other for communication to be prosperous. A study of communication often examines the development and structure of language including the mathematical languages utilized in computer

In order to gain a better understanding of the elements involved in a defamation lawsuit, it’s important to take a closer look at the each of the elements (all listed above). In regards to the first element, a "statement" needs to be spoken, written, or otherwise expressed in some manner. Moreover, because the spoken word often fades

Right to reputation – if effected by means of words spoken or written is actionable as civil as well as criminal wrong

The Defamation Act 1957 is an act relating to the laws of libel, slander and other malicious falsehoods. Defamation is a statement (of fact) about an individual, which is published, and which affects that person’s reputation. By looking at the Defamation Act 1957 and the Malaysian Penal Code, it would be probably rational to note that we have these laws in order to protect a person’s reputation regardless of the notion of press freedom since the right to publish by the media is not absolute[ http://repo.uum.edu.my/12982/1/1-s2.0-S1877.pdf]. The Malaysian Government through the Defamation Act 1957 and the Penal Code in the case of defamations there are some shortcomings and drawbacks of these acts which needs some transformations. There are few notions and recommendations which might help to soothe the current drawbacks of these acts.

in a free flow of information and communication. There is a tension between these two interests.