This Article explores the effects of the European unification of conflict-of-laws rules under Rome II and re-examines the particular choice-of-law tension that defamation poses. It also discusses the legislation’s potential impact on English law, and concludes that a balance between flexibility and certainty is required.

This Briefing Note provides an overview of pertinent international freedom of information standards that directly relate to defamation. It draws on international and comparative jurisprudence, as well as authoritative standard-setting statements by international bodies.

This report, prepared by the secretariat of the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) of the European Council, investigates, among other things, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) on freedom of expression in the context of defamation cases and reviews Council of Europe and other international standards on defamation. It contains information on the legal provisions on defamation in various Council of Europe member states. It also attempts to identify trends in the development of rules on defamation, both in national legal systems and in international law.

In this case, the Human Rights Committee recalled that General Comment 34 of the ICCPR urged member States to consider the decriminalization of defamation, and in case, that the application of criminal law must be countenanced only in most serious of cases and imprisonment was never an appropriate penalty. The Committee held that the imprisonment of a radio broadcaster for allegedly defamatory statements to be excessive.

This article examines the conflict between Freedom of Speech and Right to Reputation, particularly analysing the legal reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights’ with regard to the conflict between these human rights. After a comprehensive study of the cases decided by the ECtHR, the article identifies the various doctrines evolved by the Court in order to solve this conflict. However, the paper concludes that the Court’s legal reasoning suffers from a lack of clarity, consistency, and transparency.

The Article critiques the contributions made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the growing international jurisprudence on freedom of expression. It analyses the Inter-American Court’s case holdings in light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the U.N. Human Rights Committee.

This comment traces the relationship between freedom of speech and the common law of defamation in India, Australia, South Africa, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. A central theme is the treatment of the iconic decision of the United States Supreme Court in New York Times v Sullivan. This comment shows that while the use of foreign precedent by judges in common law countries is widespread, the use of such precedent is, in the main, not uncritical.

This report was drafted by the Ireland Government and provided a series of recommendations to overhaul the outdated Defamation Act, 1961 and to bring the law in line with that of other States.

In this submission, Article 19 has critiqued the Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation.

The draft Defamation Bill and accompanying consultation paper contain provisions reforming the law to strike the right balance between protection of freedom of speech and protection of reputation in the United Kingdom.