Compare Law Of Defamation In Us And Britain Media Essay

Compargon Law Of Defamation In Us And Britain Media auditionIntroductionThe calculate of this topic is to comp be the justness of denigration in the fall in States and the United state. Considering the defense is open to a journalist incriminate of besmirch, an analytic thinking depart be given as to which frame go do society. In considering a comparison of calumny practice of rectitude in the United States and the United farming, it is useful to consider points of advantage and disadvantage. An sound arbiterment of the advantages and disadvantages will help to demonstrate which outline better serve society.An overall assessment shows that, while the United States may get down disadvantages associated with the defamation law system, the British system has m some(prenominal) glaring problems that undermine dislodge speech and equity. This center that the British system does not serve society better. Such analysis will be supported by referring to the sources of bare(a) speech guarantees, which in the US ar guaranteed by the Constitution, the burden of validation, which in the US wife with the plaintiff, and the cost and ataraxis of access, which in Britain is a situation that has spiraled out of control.Sources of set down Speech GuaranteesIn unfavourablely investigating the advantages of defamation law in the United States for journalists, Crook (2010) indicates that the existence of the origin Amendment is advantages for journalists, a point easy voiced by some other intelligent practitioners (Meiklejohn, 1961 Byrne, 1989). The reason why is because it guarantees them, by the Constitution, the right of free speech. This means both at the federal direct or otherwise cannot block the independence of speech and that is the fundamental guarantee. In America, the case that sets the organic principles for defame is the case of sweet York quantify versus Sullivan (Crook, 2010). Because of the thoroughgoing right of the freedo m of expression in the United States, in that respect is much of a positive culture for the freedom of expression (Crook, 2010, p. 237), a linear post again voiced by other sources wish Fiss (1988) who said the freedom of speech amendment to the constitution defines we America is as a nation. Indeed, there is more(prenominal) than room given to the rights of the freedom of the press as a result, among other advantages.In the United Kingdom, there ar not a constitutional principles established. In other words, in the UK, there be not either constitutional provisions on free speech law like the United States. Crook (2005) explains the reason for this being is because the UK does not take up a federal legal system or Constitution. As well, the UK is subject to queer forces like the atomic number 63an Court and the European communities. Still, the legal framework with project to the freedom of speech and United Kingdom is found in the rulings of Reynolds versus Times and Turkington v Times.Burden of ProofAnother advantage of the defamation law within the United States is the burden of proof for journalists is on the plaintiff. The evidence the US plaintiff has to present during cases of defamation includes the following. In particular, a U.S. plaintiff has to testify that the communication was executed to purposely injure reputation, that the message is false and resign to a third-party (Watts, 2004). Further, if the definition is associated with public officials or in the interests of the public, the requirements extend further. In such cases, the US plaintiff will sacrifice to prove existent malice and negligence (Crook, 2010).This is not the case in the United Kingdom where the burden of proof is said to lay with the defendant. With the burden of proof lie on the defendant rather than the plaintiffs, such the underlying assumption is that whatever offending speech has the potential to be untrue and the writer or author has to prove that it is true (Crook, 2010). Again, this is in contrast to the United States where, in order to succeed, the plaintiffs have to prove this speech is false and has been make with a dis imply for the truth. The thoughts of the disadvantages because, when compared with the United States system, the plaintiff is in charge of providing evidence of an blot to reputation.Costs and Ease of AccessAnother disadvantage that has been associated with the defamation law for UK journalists are the costs problematical. Crook (2010) documents the fact that attempting to defend against libel is stylus expensive, and as a result those who are able to defend against any attacks on reputation or against libel are generally those who are more powerful or who are wealthier in society. As a related concern, there has also been in the documentation of substantial awards of remedy, and the touchstone of awards that are given are thought to heighten the risks associated with defending against libel actions a nd place on pressure journalists to settle even if they have a chance of winning the case. The situation is not helped by the introduction of what are called contingency agreements and conditional fee agreements, abbreviated CFA, which means more quite a little are able to sue in cases of libel (Crook, 2010). Thus, the amount of damages awarded, the costs involved, and the lack of barriers, present a disadvantages situation, and these issues are further explored in the paragraphs that follow.Indeed, some statistics are instructive in pertaining a picture of the underway situation as pertaining to costs and restrictions on speech. According to the Libel tidy campaign (Libel Reform, 2010), more than 30% of editors supported medical and scientific journals arrange they have been threatened with libel more than 40% have been asked to variety the articles to protect from libel, and more than a third have an his work from journalists because of the business of libel action. Moreover , the report, Free Speech Is Not For Sale, has also documented a long list of criticisms against the wealthy in society as the report documents how those who are in power have filed their suit in capital of the United Kingdom because of the fact that 90% of such cases are unremarkably won by claimant (The Guardian, 2010). The total costs have been documented to be above more than 1,000,000 pounds, 140 times more than the little cases that are held in the mainland of Europe (The Guardian, 2010). Because journalists and scientists are not able to afford such extraordinary costs, they usually end up withdrawing their comments, apologizing to publish material that they believe true entropy and are important to contributing to an informed public debate on issues that matter to society (BeVier, 1980).There are efforts for change in place. In 2009, the Justice Secretary in Britain, Jack straw, indicated the introduction of the government plans to disgrace the fees to launch defamation c ases so as to contract the system more honorable (Mulholland, 2009). If such recovers are apply, this will represent an important ill-use forward in making the British system more equitable because the press is a vital element of democracy (Shiner, 2008). According to the media and legal literature (Petrova 2008), the press serves the function of informing the public and providing information that enables them to make choices as good citizens (Dahlberg, 2001). Therefore, being able to publish information and not restrict the freedom of expression is seen as being a critical component of democracy but presently this situation constrained in Britain because of the libel law (Loper, 1974 Hensley, 2001).Lord McNally Justice Minister of the United Kingdom has raised this concern recently. McNally indicated the urgent need to allow different forms of news media or scientific enquiry be able to be create without the fear of unfounded, lengthy and costly defamation and little cases being brought against them (Sweney, 2010, p. 1). However, to fulfill this, the government as well as the nicety minister is of the legal opinion that what it requires is to reform the UK law on defamation to strike a difference between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation (Sweney, 2010, p. 1). Attempting to achieve this match is very typical in considering the present system where costs are extremely high and where awards serve as a deterrent to achieving arbitrator in the system.Moreover, there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the ease of launching a lawsuit in Britain and how the rich are involved in it (Lahlou, 2009). In fact, it has led to what is called libel tourism (Howard, 2008). With the term refers to is instances in which a keep company operating in for example Iceland complains about a newspaper that published information in Denmark, and then a capital of the United Kingdom lawyer will be called to handle the case, and the hook is held in Britain (Carvaja, 2008). atomic number 53 report launched, called Free Speech Is Not For Sale, showed how dangerous the law of defamation is in this respect (Libel Reform, 2010). According to the English law for example, any writer who contributes to blogs or journalists, can be sued in London irrespective of where they peppy or work and regardless of where the blog was published (The Guardian, 2010). This means that citizens in America or a citizen of Russia can be sued in Britain who are exercising their right of free speech in their own country. Obviously, this is a system that is not in the interest of free speech and is not in the interests of equity.The situation described above is not just theoretical. umteen cases have resulted from libel tourism. The disadvantages stemming from the system in the UK can be seen in the case of writer, racial Ehrenfeld, who published a book about a Saudi billionaire entrepreneur and accused the entrepreneur of providing financial su pport to Moslem terrorist groups (Carvaja, 2008). Although the book was not published in Britain, only copies of the book had been purchased their online, the judge in the case ruled that the writer had to pay more than $200,000 and justify for the allegations in the book as well as destroy vivacious copies of it. (Carvaja, 2008) The outcome of this particular case has not only affected the writer in question but is also affected other publishers because they are now afraid, according to Ehrenfeld, to publish information about potential terrorist or Saudi financiers even if the evidence is there. So because of the way the burden of proof operates, this can have an effect on limiting the amount of free speech.Globalization does not ease the burden on journalists. Because of globalization, where telecommunications are change magnitude the amount of information dispersal and access, the potential to sue in Britain is increase all around. For example, a television network that is ba sed in Dubai and send off in Arabic was sued by a businessman in Tanzania who was disputing against allegations to ties to a terrorist group in a British court (Ungoed-Thomas Gillard, 2009). The British court was involved because the program was accessible through a satellite in Britain. The man from Tunisian was awarded more than $160,000 (Ungoed-Thomas Gillard, 2009).In the United States, there have been some legislative protections passed to protect U.S. journalists from the British system. New York State implemented the libel terrorism prevention act (Carvaja, 2008). The law that has been passed in New York is important for many reasons, one of which is that it helps to provide protection for her journalists to publish information. Essentially, what the pen nib has done is to declare any judgments that may be made with regard to a US journalist unenforceable unless the country that is deciding on the case has free speech protections that are similar to the United States Cons titutions First Amendment (Libel Reform, 2010).British citizens are not much happier with the current system, either. In fact, there is even a campaign that has been ongoing for some time, which can be found on libelreform.org (Libel Reform, 2010), and is urging individuals as well as politicians and businesses to reform libel laws. Those participating on the reform campaign see the system as unjust because it enables too many individuals to launch cases and silent claims that others do not agree with.This is not to say the system in the U.S. is perfect. For example, in the past there have been cases in which, in the United States, companies have open suits of commercial defamation when journalists have listed companies among those who face bankruptcy risk. wheel did this by suing a journalist publishing information about Hertz, wondering(a) its financial performance (Starkman, 2009). This brings up issues of whether those involved in market research and other research firms can c riticize a company that is in public listed without fearing defamation claims. The issue also demonstrate how commercial and publicly listed companies have involved federal courts to punish those who speak out on company performance ((Starkman, 2009). The issue is unreassuring because it shows an abuse of the system as it pertains to defamation law, and it also undermines the freedom of speech, while bringing up very disturbing implications about what is journalists can publish about companies obviously, having access to accurate information about company performance is something that should be able to be published (Crook, 2010). However, in the end, it appears the system in Britain presents far more concerns and undermines democracy.ConclusionThe purpose of this report was to compare the law of defamation in the United States and the United Kingdom to determine which system serves society better. In considering the defamation law in the United States and the United Kingdom, one could conclude that the system in the United States is better. The reason why is mainly because in Britain there are too many ways for journalists to be sued and it compromises free speech guarantees. In contrast, in America, such are solely rooted in the foundations of the country. To be sure, this does not mean that the system in the United States is without flaw. But from the perspective of the present writer, it does appear that the system in the United States is better serve society than the system in the United Kingdom because in the UK so many people can be sued and it serves the rich better. This undermines equity and undermines free speech. Such analysis may coincide with others who have criticized the British system even the Minister for Justice, Lord McNally, has indicated that the libel law in England is not fit for purpose and is striving throughout his career in the justice system to reform the system (Libel Reform Justice Minister tells campaigners libel law is not fi t for purpose, 2010).