tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-387697712012-02-09T20:46:33.165+08:00Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.comBlogger201100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-19131152191045805132008-06-03T01:26:00.000+08:002008-06-03T01:28:56.014+08:00

©The Sunday Star (Used by permission)Comment by Chelsea L.Y. NgSunday, 01 June 2008 08:12amIN SHAKESPEARE’S Much Ado About Nothing, the female protagonist Hero who was supposed to marry her lover Claudio fell down in a dead faint in front of the priest who was to conduct their wedding after her lover mistakenly accused her of talking to another man at her bedroom window at midnight – a most

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1172048936057948052007-02-21T17:04:00.000+08:002007-02-21T17:08:56.060+08:00

Generally, defamation occurs when a statement or publication injures the reputation of another. Malaysian law contemplates both civil defamation and criminal defamation. Civil defamation is provided under the Defamation Act 1957. Under this Act, defamation is established if a plaintiff is able to show that publication of the defamatory statement was done, and the defamatory statement made, with

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1172048156874676902007-02-21T16:54:00.000+08:002007-02-21T16:55:56.886+08:00

Sued into SilenceA surfeit of defamation cases in Malaysian courts threatens free expressionBy RAJA AZIZ ADDRUSEIn some countries journalists have to keep their heads down to avoid bullets. In Malaysia the dangers are different, but just as real. Increasingly, what would be considered a normal exercise of their craft in other democracies can land reporters with a multimillion dollar defamation

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170695896722316192007-02-05T23:57:00.000+08:002007-02-21T17:03:34.570+08:00

Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, or which tends to cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided: Jones, Tort (2000).The principle aim of the law of defamation is the protection of individual's reputation.However, the central problem is how to reconcile this purpose with the conflicting

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170246063343314582007-01-31T20:19:00.000+08:002007-01-31T20:21:03.620+08:00

MGG Pillai v Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appeals COURT OF APPEAL (KUALA LUMPUR)— CIVIL APPEAL NOS W–02–221–94, W–02–222–94 AND W–02–223–94LAMIN PCA, GOPAL SRI RAM JCA AND ABU MANSOR JCA[1995] 2 MLJ 49322 MAY 1995CatchwordsTort — Defamation — Libel in magazine — Apology — Whether sufficient and unqualified apology — Whether merely conditional apologyEvidence — Conspiracy — Whether must be

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170184178404563872007-01-31T03:05:00.000+08:002007-01-31T03:09:38.410+08:00

Jane Martinson in New YorkWednesday May 3, 2000The Guardian Internet service providers in the US were yesterday celebrating a supreme court ruling that gave them full protection against any libellous or abusive message sent over the web. Advocates for free speech backed the US ruling, which puts internet service providers (ISPs) on the

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170183813509572002007-01-31T03:01:00.000+08:002007-01-31T03:03:33.520+08:00

Jane Martinson in New YorkWednesday May 3, 2000The GuardianInternet service providers in the US were yesterday celebrating a supreme court ruling that gave them full protection against any libellous or abusive message sent over the web.Advocates for free speech backed the US ruling, which puts internet service providers (ISPs) on the same footing as telephone companies as message carriers.Stewart

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170183668998330682007-01-31T02:58:00.000+08:002007-01-31T03:01:09.006+08:00

Despite concern over baby-trading on the net, service providers say full regulation or court action could not be enforced Steven MorrisMonday January 22, 2001SocietyGuardian.co.uk The government's intention may be good, but the news that the Department of Health has told internet providers they could be prosecuted for relaying information that breaks British

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170183332852787702007-01-31T02:53:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:55:32.856+08:00

Sarah LeftTuesday July 10, 2001SocietyGuardian.co.uk Internet service provider Demon Internet today won a legal challenge to the injunction that prohibits UK media from publishing information about the new identities or location of James Bulger's killers.Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the president of the family division at the high court,

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170183201127533892007-01-31T02:51:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:53:21.136+08:00

Music firms will find it hard to establish a case against illegal downloading Richard ColbeySaturday October 30, 2004The Guardian The music industry has got considerable publicity for its drive to prevent unauthorised downloading of music from the internet. Trade association, the British Phonographic Institute (BPI),

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170183014270388112007-01-31T02:47:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:50:14.293+08:00

James SturckeThursday August 31, 2006Guardian Unlimited British libel laws were already complicated enough before the internet came along. Their aim is to balance the right of free speech against protection for the reputation of an individual from unjustified attack. In law, a person is defamed if statements in a publication expose him to

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170182287511751032007-01-31T02:36:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:38:07.513+08:00

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal judge in Houston on Friday threw out most of a $222.7 million libel verdict against Dow Jones & Co., a record amount that stunned the newspaper industry and free-press advocates. The ruling by Judge Ewing Werlein eliminated $200 million in punitive damages awarded to the Houston investment firm of MMAR Group Inc. Actual damages of $22.7 million still stand against

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170181927790565762007-01-31T02:27:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:35:35.480+08:00

Defamation is one of the most serious dangers facing journalists and publishers today. Eighty per cent of all defamation actions are brought against the media - and a libel action can bankrupt a small newspaper or radio station. Balance of rights Journalists may feel that they should have the right to say whatever they like. After all, Article 40.6.1.i of the Irish Constitution says that the

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170181551304856552007-01-31T02:17:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:25:51.316+08:00

DamagesThe purpose of damages in tort law is to compensate the victim and seek to place him in the position he would have been in had the tort not been committed against him.In defamation proceedings the jury determines the amount of damages that the claimant shall receive. As discussed in the introduction to this workbook awards are notoriously high, although evidence suggests they may be

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170180938081852502007-01-31T02:09:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:15:38.106+08:00

JustificationAt common law a defamatory statement is presumed to be false. It is thus a defence if the defendant can prove on the balance of probabilities that the defamatory statement was in fact true. The law of defamation is concerned with protecting reputations and the law will not protect character a person does not have; M'Pherson v Daniels (1829) 10 B & C 263.There are two principal

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170180039967660402007-01-31T01:55:00.000+08:002007-01-31T02:03:56.856+08:00

Elements introductionNow we come to the substance of defamation. The first question to ask is - what are the elements of defamation? That is, what is the claimant required to prove to establish a case of defamation?There are a number of hurdles, each of which the claimant must cross to prove a case of defamation:1. The statement / picture / gesture was defamatory;2. The statement referred to

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170179553259911762007-01-31T01:46:00.000+08:002007-01-31T01:52:33.270+08:00

An outline of the elements of the law of defamationThe law of defamation is concerned with protecting the reputation of an individual, corporation or other legal person from the harm caused by the communication of untrue statements to a third party. Skolnick has interestingly described defamation as 'the social tort'.A statement may harm you in many ways, but if it does not affect your

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170178869013723002007-01-31T01:32:00.000+08:002007-01-31T01:41:09.053+08:00

Malice in Qualified PrivilegePaul Mitchell, Lecturer in law, St Hilda's College, Oxford[1999] Public Law 328 I would like to a acknowledge the help and advice I have received from Mr J W Davies and Prof E Barendt in writing this article.A defendant establishes a prima facie defence of qualified privilege to an action in defamation if he can show that the publication was made by him in pursuance

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170178229599219002007-01-31T01:28:00.000+08:002007-01-31T01:30:29.630+08:00

The Defamation Act 1996 and Political Libels[1997] Public Law 113 by Andrew Sharland, Barrister, and Ian Loveland, Brunel UniversityNeil Hamilton's libel action against The Guardian promised to be the most spectacular political event of 1996. The Guardian had run several articles accusing Hamilton of receiving large sums of money, which were not declared in the Commons' Register

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38769771.post-1170167688521132422007-01-30T22:24:00.000+08:002007-01-30T22:34:48.840+08:00

Jeff Ooi and Rocky Bru's defamation suit by NSTP prompted me to ponder over the subject on defamation. I actually requested Malik Imtiaz to post an article on the law of defamation based on Malaysian perspective. He did not respond to my request.Unable to get another to do so, I thought, maybe, it would be better that I start doing it myself. That's how this blog is born.I will be writing on the

Maverick SMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02871611453372513136noreply@blogger.com4