A Crisis of Democratic Accountability

Public Libel Law and the Checking Function of the Press
Erscheinungsjahr 2020
ISBN: 978-1-5099-4370-8
Verlag: Hart Publishing

Buch, Englisch, 272 Seiten, Paperback, Format (B × H): 156 mm x 234 mm, Gewicht: 386 g

This book undertakes a comparative study of the public interest and political speech defences in defamation law, particularly from the perspective of the misuse of democratic free expression justifications. Specifically, it argues that the law and legal approaches taken by leading courts and legislatures in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States - five common law comparators - are undertheorised, lack adequate criteria for determining the correct form of the defence, and would benefit from a more precise understanding of 'democracy', 'accountability', and 'representation'. The book will be of great interest to scholars of free speech, defamation and public law.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Stephenson, Randall

Fachgebiete

• Rechtswissenschaften Recht, Rechtswissenschaft Allgemein Rechtsvergleichung
• Rechtswissenschaften Ausländisches Recht Common Law (UK, USA, Australien u.a.)

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Part A: Introduction to the Problem of Public Libel Law
Overview of Part A

1. Balancing Freedom of Expression and Reputation in Constitutional Context

I. Defamation's Moving Target: Balancing Free Expression and Reputation

II. Overview of Public Libel Doctrine

III. Continuum of Doctrinal Solutions

IV. Public Libel Law's Theory-Doctrine Rift

V. Chapter Conclusion

2. Methodological Barriers to Democratic Theorising

I. Overview

II. Methodological Barrier I
III. Democratic Theorising in Public Libel Jurisprudence

IV. Methodological Barrier II

V. Moving Forward

Part B: Undertheorising Democratic Accountability: Comparative Law Analysis of Public Libel Doctrine
Overview of Part B

3. Indeterminate Balancing in Public Libel Doctrine: Generic Rules and 'Implied Rights'

I. United States

II. Australia

III. Chapter Conclusion

4. Overlooking the Checking Function of the Press

I. Overview

II. Strasbourg Jurisprudence

III. United Kingdom

IV. New Zealand

V. Chapter Conclusion

5. Conflating Meiklejohnian Theory and the Checking Function of the Press

I. Overview

II. United Kingdom

III. Canada

IV. Chapter Conclusion

Part C: Reasserting Democratic Accountability
Overview of Part C

6. Distinguishing the Checking Function from Meiklejohnian Theory: Lessons from Public Accountability and Neo-Republicanism

I. Confronting a Conceptual Stalemate: 'Representation' and 'Accountability'

II. Public Accountability Scholarship

III. Neo-Republicanism: A Return to Institutional Design

IV. Chapter Conclusion

7. A Revised Analytical Framework: Accountability Dysfunctions, Public Libel Doctrine, and the Institutional Press

I. Overview

II. Accountability Dysfunctions

III. The Institutional Press as a Horizontal Accountability Mechanism

IV. Public Libel Doctrine: Balancing Reputation and Freedom of Expression in Contemporary Democracies

V. Chapter Conclusion

Part D: Restoring Democratic Accountability
Overview of Part D

8. Assessing Britain's Political Accountability Profile

I. Selecting a Law Reform Candidate

II. Britain's Primary Accountability Mechanisms

III. Britain's Secondary Accountability Mechanisms

IV. Chapter Conclusion

9. Reinstating the Checking Function in Britain's Constitutional Context

I. Law Reform Recommendations

II. Discussion

III. Chapter Conclusion

Conclusion-Prospective Challenges to Public Libel Law Reform

Über Autor(innen)

Stephenson, Randall
Randall Stephenson is a scholar of defamation law and public law. He completed his DPhil in law at the University of Oxford in 2017. Before attending Oxford, he studied first amendment jurisprudence at Columbia University (LLM) and practised litigation at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto, Canada.

Randall Stephenson is a scholar of defamation law and public law. He completed his DPhil in law at the University of Oxford in 2017. Before attending Oxford, he studied first amendment jurisprudence at Columbia University (LLM) and practiced litigation at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in Toronto, Canada.