Three Errors in the Defamation Act 2013

Eric Descheemaeker

Research output: Working paper

Abstract

This article considers three aspects of a recent British statute on the law of defamation, the Defamation Act 2013, disputing in each case their opportuneness. First, it argues that the new requirement of ‘serious harm’ under sec 1 runs against basic tenets of the law. Second, it expresses concern about the new drafting of the defence of responsible journalism (sec 4), which is in danger of losing touch with its original rationale. Third, it examines the revamped version of the defence of fair comment, now known as ‘honest opinion’ (sec 3), and suggests that comment should never be actionable because it cannot be defamatory in the first place.
Original languageEnglish
PublisherUniversity of Edinburgh, School of Law, Working Papers
Number of pages19
Publication statusPublished - 14 Nov 2014

Publication series

NameEdinburgh Law School Working Papers
No.2014/45

Keywords

  • defamation
  • libel
  • Defamation Act 2013
  • serious harm
  • responsible journalism
  • publication on matter of public interest
  • fair comment
  • honest opinion

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Three Errors in the Defamation Act 2013'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this