In Essay, Research Paper

Defamation Law is seen as equilibrating competiting involvements: Reputation/Privacy vis a six Freedoms of Speech and Communications. [ 1.1 ] The jurisprudence of calumny in Australia has long sought to protect the viing involvements of repute and privateness, and the rights of freedom of address and information. The jurisprudence of calumny has besides sought to supply a class of action for the person and supply possible defense mechanisms available to the imperativeness. However, with new engineerings and the promotion of the information expressway in Australia, the demand to turn to incompatibilities within Australian calumny jurisprudence is going more paramount. The demand to accommodate past jobs of the allotment of involvements and the future impact engineering will hold on Australian calumny jurisprudence must now be tackled. This paper will analyze how Australian tribunals, jurisprudence reform committees and the authorities has handled Australia & # 8217 ; s calumny Torahs and the future way of calumny jurisprudence in Australia.Defamation Law in Australia [ 2.1 ] There are eight different calumny Torahs in Australia, one for each province and district. These present three different systems. The common jurisprudence system as in Victoria and South Australia. The codification system, which provides a complete depository of the rules of actionable calumny and goes farther than a restatement of the common jurisprudence, as in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia. And in the assorted state of affairss in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory where the jurisprudence is either justice made or statutory in beginning. In order to make a thorough definition of calumny it is of import to look at both systems1. [ 2.2 ] The common jurisprudence defines calumny every bit bing as a agency by which the jurisprudence seeks to compensate the unlawful harm caused to a individuals honour or repute by a published statement or imputation about him2. Judicial definitions as in Sim V Stretch3 per Lord Aitkin see a calumniatory imputation as one that & # 8216 ; tends to take down the complainant in the appraisal of right-thinking members of society by and large & # 8217 ; 4. To fall under this civil wrong by and large, there must be a publication of a derogatory and false statement esteeming another individual without lawful justification. The inquiry for the justice is whether the words are moderately capable of a calumniatory meaning5. [ 2.3 ] The statutory definition of calumny can be found in the 1899 Defamation Law of Queensland every bit good as s366 of the old Queensland Criminal Code, which defines calumny as: & # 8217 ; Any imputation refering any individual, or any member of his household, whether life or dead, by which the repute of that individual is likely to be injured, or by which he is likely to be injured in his profession or trade, or by which other individuals are likely to be induced to eschew or avoid or roast or contemn him, is called defamatory, and the affair of the imputation is called defamatory matter. & # 8217 ; [ 2.4 ] Defamation consists of libel by agencies of authorship, print or some lasting signifier or slander which takes the signifier of spoken words or gestures6. Unlike the common jurisprudence, it besides includes a inclination to wound the complainant in his profession or trade, the significance of which will be subsequently discussed.Case Law on Defamation [ 3.1 ] The function of calumny formulated by Lord Diplock in Silkin V Beaverbrook7 is to keep a balance between, & # 8230 ; the right of the person to his & # 8216 ; unsullied & # 8217 ; repute if he deserves it and the rights of the public & # 8230 ; in affairs of freedom of speech8. The tribunals work stoppage this balance indirectly when they decide whether or non a publication constitutes an actionable calumny. They pronounce in favor of one value against the other viz. make up one’s minding certain publications to be calumniatory and so leting defense mechanisms. It is to be stressed that the jurisprudence does non protect mere repute, but merely repute if so good founded in the complainant & # 8217 ; s character that the publication of false statements are to his/her discredit9. This can be identified as an attempt to protect freedom of look from unneeded defamatory actions. [ 3.2 ] At common jurisprudence, there is the given that calumniatory imputations are false. The suspect bears the load of turn outing its truth. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for the suspect to turn out the actual truth of the words merely the substance or & # 8217 ; biting & # 8217 ; of that complained of. As stated in Edwards V Bell10, & # 8220 ; as much must be justified as meets the biting & # 8230 ; and if anything & # 8230 ; does non add to the sting of it, that need non be justified & # 8221 ; 11. This encourages freedom of look based on two ideals. It is in the involvements of society for an single & # 8217 ; s repute to be consistent and a individual can merely reasonably expect protection from untruths that disrepute him/her12. Why should it be otherwise? It would be a truly effete society that would honor the speech production of a truth by penalty at jurisprudence. [ 3.3 ] The Defamation Law of Queensland and s366 of the old Queensland Criminal Code mirrors the common jurisprudence up until it includes calumny where an imputation is likely to wound one in his/her profession or trade. This is contended an attempt by the Australian parliament to occupy the district of deleterious falsehood13. In the Sungrave Pty Ltd V Middle East Airlines14 instance, an article was published on the highjacking of a fleet of aircrafts & # 8217 ; belonging to a Lebanese company called & # 8216 ; Middle East Airlines & # 8217 ; with an insignia of a green cedar tree. The complainant, a company runing under the same name and insignia sued the publishing house for the imputation that its air hoses faced a serious hazard of being hijacked. The High Court found for the complainant, that a calumniatory imputation within the statutory definition need non be belittling. It is adequate if it simply attributes an act or status to a individual likely to wound that individual in his or her concern or profession. However, such a determination raises inquiries of the ability of calumny jurisprudence to cover other countries originally accepted as deleterious falsity where maliciousness had to be proved by the complainant. [ 3.4 ] Such an juncture is the issue of whether a company can be defamed through belittling its & # 8217 ; merchandises? This depends on whether a company can possess a repute or whether it simply has economically mensurable good will? Goodwill is the benefit a concern has from its repute and trade connections15. In Lewis v Daily Telegraph16, Lord Reid affirmed the latter. & # 8220 ; A company can non be injured in its feelings, it can merely be injured in its pocket. Its repute can be injured but that hurt must sound in money. The hurt need non needfully be confined to loss of income. Its good will may be injured & # 8221 ; 17. Although this determination was slightly true, today it seems wholly valid, a Restoration of repute non via economic agencies but by public apology can in fact reconstruct some repute which would hold been lost and does non hold terms18. [ 3.5 ] As if to farther ease the demands of the person, the common jurisprudence in Australia has expanded calumniatory action to include ridicule. In the Boyd19 instance, It was found that an imputation which exposed a individual to roast, without any suggestion of mistake on his portion was capable of being calumniatory. Similarly, in the Ettingshausen20 instance, where exposure of the complainant nude were published in a magazine. Hunt J upheld the rule of an American authorization where it was said that stuff which adversely affects his appraisal in the heads of others so that he becomes associated in their heads with absurdness may be calumniatory. Ettingshausen was awarded $ 350,000 compensation21. However, as discussed before, a better attack of the tribunal today may non be so much to present amendss, but instead do an order of a rectification of statements as proposed by the Attorney Generals of New South Wales and Queensland22. [ 3.6 ] The range for the jurisprudence of calumny has been given a broad reading. To battle such limitations journalists have entree to a figure of defense mechanisms. Truth, public benefit, public involvement, just remark, and qualified and absolute privileges23. [ 3.6 ] The defense mechanism of Truth is intertwined with public benefit or in a assorted system such as in NSW, public involvement. Although public benefit Acts of the Apostless as a defense mechanism, it has been criticised by publishing houses for its drawbacks to the freedom of the imperativeness. & # 8220 ; When newspapers can non support their printing of the truth in studies of such public activities as Equus caballus racing because of the uncertainness of its benefits to the populace, the jurisprudence is an buttocks & # 8221 ; 24. However in more recent instances, the tribunals have sought to help the imperativeness in countries of political treatment, nevertheless they are speedy to note its limited application to non political discussions25. [ 3.7 ] The most used defense mechanism is just remark because of the bounds placed on the others. The trial for just remark as formulated by Lord Esher in Merivale V Carson26 is whether the just adult male, nevertheless prejudiced, exaggerated or obstinate his positions, have criticised as the publication has? This trial is argued to be by ordinary criterions unjust, as the suspect might win even if the remark is prejudiced or unreasonable because specifying and apportioning the just adult male is a effort in itself27. [ 3.8 ] The defense mechanisms of absolute and qualified privilege have shown marks of development in England, American and late Australia28. In the English instance of Derbyshire29 instance, the issue was raised as to whether a local authorization was entitled to action in libel for words that reflected on its governmental map? The House of Lords negatived this by saying that the same rights available to private citizens did non use to the authorities unless they could demo it was in the public involvement. There was no public involvement in leting the action as it would work against the prized value of the freedom of address for the public30. This position has been echoed in Australia in many recent determinations by the High Court. [ 3.9 ] Absolute privilege exists in theory where the jurisprudence ignores wholly the person & # 8217 ; s involvement in the protection of his/her repute. It applies to state of affairss such as parliamentary or tribunal proceedings nevertheless, it attaches to the establishment itself and non to re-publishers like the media31. To interrupt this regulation could ensue in actions such as disdain of court32. Qualified privilege at common jurisprudence exists where a individual has an involvement or a responsibility ( legal, societal or moral ) to pass on a message to another who has a mutual responsibility or involvement to have it33. Problems of over publication by the imperativeness could take to an maltreatment of the privilege and the attempts to set up a responsibility would do holds in a civil wrong that needs immediate declaration. However, qualified privilege is justified when there are allegations refering the safety of the populace for case, an septic line of merchandises. This has the consequence of freedom of the press34. [ 3.10 ] Remedies in calumny suits both compensate the complainant for the injury committed to their repute and promote a reluctance to print stuff. Damagess are available as a exoneration of the complainant to the populace and to comfort him/her for the hurt caused by calumny. Interlocutory injunctions besides exist so as to move as a restraint to publication until a instance can be heard before the tribunal. However, such injunctions are merely granted in exceeding fortunes, normally where the complainant has formulated his/her instance on a cause of action other than calumny eg. deleterious falsity. The ground being, that it acts as a hobble on freedom of address and assume the tribunals map as to whether the affair is calumniatory. A lasting injunction is capable of keeping the suspect from future publications of calumniatory affair. However, this is seldom exhausted as it is unusual that person would desire to print calumniatory affair for public benefit at their ain expense35. Thus some leeway is made for the freedom of the press.The Changing face of Defamation [ 4.1 ] In early instances of calumny under legislative act it has been clear that the protection of repute and privateness has been given greater weight than the involvements of freedom of address and information. In the 1910 instance of Hall-Gibbs Mercantile Agency v Dun36 the High Court was required for the first clip to find the statutory range of the definition of calumny. The Court took the position that regardless of whether a notice produced by the suspects was belittling or non, it was in fact capable of bearing a calumniatory significance under the legislative act and was likely to wound concern. So to in the instance of Mirror Newspapers v World Hosts Pty Ltd37 the High Court found a calumniatory significance from the headline of a newspaper article even though the article was factually right. Whilst, under common jurisprudence such actions would non be seen as defamatory. [ 4.2 ] However, with determinations in more recent instances it can be shown that the tribunal has shifted the balance to community involvements and the right to freedom of address and communicating from repute and privateness. [ 4.3 ] In the 1992 instance of Australian Capital Television38, a bulk of the tribunal found that the philosophies of representative democracy and responsible authorities, built-in to the Commonwealth Constitution needfully gave rise to an implied constitutional freedom of communicating. The implied freedom of communicating was diversely

described by the members of the tribunal, but basically comprised a limited freedom for citizens to pass on between themselves with regard to political matters39. [ 4.4 ] Following on from Australian Capital Television came the instances of Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd40 and Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd41 which have probed the nature and range of the implied freedom of communicating. A bulk in Theophanous held that the “chilling effect” of calumny jurisprudence infringed the implied freedom of communicating, which necessitated alterations to the common jurisprudence of calumny. In instances in which the suspect publishes “political discussion” , the bulk formulated a new defense mechanism to calumny actions and modified the common jurisprudence defense mechanism of qualified privilege. Stephens followed on from Theophanous and applied such rules to the State statutory jurisprudence of defamation42.

Criticisms of Recent Cases [ 5.1 ] There has been a assortment of responses to the determination in Theophanous. Some faculty members take the position that the Theopanous instance has come about because of a failure of politicians to reform calumny Torahs. Such a determination is non seen as good jurisprudence devising, as Judgess are simply an undemocratically appointed organic structure which is efficaciously doing a political determination. Although the determination in Theophanous is justified, the manner in which it was achieved has to be questioned43. [ 5.2 ] Others seem to oppugn whether this new implied right Australian tribunals have recognised will intend the death of a right to protect 1s repute and privateness. Although this seems valid, the High Court has made it clear that calumniatory statements nothingness of political address shall non be covered in the implied right of freedom of communication44.Law Reform Commissions and Governmental Reports [ 6.1 ] There is general understanding that the jurisprudence of calumny in Australia is in demand of reform. The Australian Law Reform Commission recommended in 1979 that a separate civil wrong of invasion of privateness be created. However, this was rejected by a Senate Standing Committee. In 1983, a Draft Bill for a unvarying calumny jurisprudence attempted to add some privateness component by forbiding the defense mechanism of justification. The exclusion of which were if the affair was the topic of authorities or judicial record available for public review, the publication was made for the sensible intent of continuing the personal safety or protecting the belongings of any individual, or the affair in the public interest45. [ 6.2 ] The Attorney-Generals of NSW, QLD and VIC in a 1990 study discussed the convergence of public involvement in freedom of the imperativeness and entree to information, balanced against the single right of repute and privacy46. However it can be argued that this privateness impression is a false belief, as the jurisprudence of calumny was ne’er intended to protect these involvements. A breach of privateness differs from calumny as it might non impact a individual & # 8217 ; s repute as in libel and slander, and it might non be a statement. For case, gazing into the window of a adult female & # 8217 ; s private house. Therefore, privateness leads to difficulty when ordaining calumny Torahs which & # 8216 ; while effectual to keep improper invasion of privateness, would non interfere with the proper coverage of affairs which are in the public involvement. As a effect, in 1993 the NSW Law Reform Commission declined the Attorney-General & # 8217 ; s place by rebuting privateness protection as portion of calumny jurisprudence. In add-on they argued that truth entirely should be the lone justification in calumny actions47. [ 6.3 ] In visible radiation of legion studies and treatment upon Australian calumny jurisprudence, the demand for the authorities to decently pass in the country is going more apparent. The tribunals can non ever pick up where the jurisprudence does non, and the jurisprudence should rectify existent jobs which afflict Australian society non in the hereafter, but now. Australia & # 8217 ; s segmented calumny Torahs are turn outing a serious job. Assorted issues are impacting on Australian calumny Torahs, such as their jurisdictional range, the awarding of amendss and the failure to admit the implied right of freedom of communicating and address contained in the Australian Constitution. Although a unvarying Commonwealth jurisprudence seems to be a great solution, it can merely estrange the provinces more as their power in the Federation will dwindle like so many other powers they one time had. Hence no existent solution can be found which will fulfill all parties involved. With farther input from the community and proper research, an equal solution to run into the involvements of all may one twenty-four hours be forthcoming.Impact of New Technology in Balancing Interests [ 7.1 ] At the head of the new engineering bets is the Internet, or what is normally referred to as the Information Superhighway. Millions of persons and groups of people are researching computing machine webs and on-line systems today. The Internet is more than holding merriment with computing machines and modems, it is the start of a societal revolution in a batch of places and offices. Peoples are now get downing to populate parts of their lives online, in treatment groups, nines, trade administrations, practical corporations and so on48. [ 7.2 ] Just like in the physical universe, people and concerns can ache others on the Internet in a batch of ways, both by chance and on intent. They can state hurtful prevarications about each other, steal or copy each others & # 8217 ; belongings or even interrupt a promise or a trade on which person else depends. There is great possible for calumny on online services, particularly in group message and chat countries. Hundreds of people might read the posters in a individual online service treatment country. The participants may cognize each other reasonably good, and move in the same personal and concern circles49. [ 7.3 ] Someone whose repute is injured in a public treatment on an on-line service or web can happen it has effects in the & # 8220 ; existent universe & # 8221 ; 50. This is no more strongly depicted in Australia & # 8217 ; s ain backyard in the unreported West Australian Supreme Court instance of Rindos V Hardwick51. This was the instance where a professor at the University of Western Australia was publically defamed in forepart of his equals on a bulletin board contained on the Internet with a distribution to more than 23,000 users. The distributed electronic mail stated that Dr. Rindos engaged in & # 8216 ; Puppy Parties focused & # 8230 ; on a local male child & # 8230 ; called Puppy & # 8217 ; , that he had no echt academic ability in his field and has non based his theories on appropriate research but has merely depended upon blowing up and intimidation others, that he is & # 8220 ; against Aboriginal land rights and Aboriginal people & # 8221 ; and is a racialist individual, that the he is non a echt anthropologist but a tool of excavation corporations and eventually that he drinks to excess and spends most of his clip & # 8220 ; in the local saloon & # 8221 ; . The Court in this instance found that calumniatory affair did be and awarded $ 40,000 in amendss to Dr. Rindos. [ 7.4 ] The Internet is quickly deriving a stronger bridgehead on how worlds communicate today. Hence, for viing involvements to be efficaciously understood, both Australia & # 8217 ; s legislators and tribunals must genuinely see the impact the Internet and new engineering will hold on Australian society today and in the non to distant future.Conclusion [ 8.1 ] In decision, it is true to state calumny jurisprudence in Australia today is under rapid alteration by the tribunals. As Australia & # 8217 ; s legislators have lagged behind, the undemocratically elected tribunals have sought to make full a spread in Australian calumny jurisprudence which has been left hanging. The tribunals have viewed an implied freedom of address a constitutional right and have applied it to instances of calumny. Although the tribunals are speedy to state such will merely use to political treatment, it seems about inevitable that trial instances will abound as to its applications to countries beyond political treatment. For Australia to properly balance viing involvements in issues of calumny it must foremost sit down and re-evaluate how it perceives calumny jurisprudence today, and how it hopes to use calumny jurisprudence in the hereafter taking into history new engineering and the development of Australia into the following millennia.Footnotes 1 Kirby, M. Federal Law Review. vol 8 1977. p122.2 Id. 115.3 Sim V Stretch ( 1936 ) 52 TLR 669.4 Id. 671.5 Rutherford, L. & A ; Bone, S. Osbourne & # 8217 ; s Concise Law Dictionary ( 8th ed. , London: Sweet & A ; Maxwell, 1993 ) 110.6 Fleming, J. The Law of Torts ( 17th ed. , Sydney: Law Book Co. , 1987 ) 520-521.7 Silkin V Beaverbrook [ 1958 ] 1 WLR 743.8 Id. 745-6.9 Brennan, D. Monash University Law Review. vol 20, no 1 1994. p153.10 Edwards V Bell ( 1824 ) Bing 403.11 Id. 409.12 Watterson, R. Australian Law Journal. vol 67, no 11 1993. p811-813.13 Id. 814.14 Sungrave Pty Ltd V Middle East Airlines ( 1975 ) 134 CLR 1.15 Rutherford, L. & A ; Bone, S. loc.cit. 158.16 Lewis 5 Daily Telegraph [ 1964 ] AC 234.17 Id. 262.18 Walker, S. Torts Law Journal. vol 2, 1994. p69-79.19 Boyd V Mirror Newspapers Ltd [ 1980 ] 2 NSWLR 449 at 456.20 Ettingshausen V Australian Consolidated Press Ltd ( 1991 ) 23 NSWLR 443.21 Id. 448.22 Walker, S. op.cit. 69.23 Fleming, J. loc.cit. 530-561.24 Brennan, D. op.cit. 158.25 O & # 8217 ; Meara, S. Torts Law Journal vol 3, 1995. p105-11.26 Merivale V Carson ( 1887 ) 20 QBD 275.27 Id. 281.28 Fleming, S. loc.cit. p531-547.29 Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [ 1993 ] 2 WLR 449.30 Id. 451.31 Hogben, B. Law Institute Journal vol 58, no 4 1984. p383-385.32 Kirby, M. op.cit. 173.33 Kidner, R. Journal of Business Law 1992. p578.34 Id. 580.35 Fleming, J. loc.cit. 530-547.36 Hall-Gibbs Mercantile Agency v Dun 91910 ) 12 CLR 84.37 Mirror Newspapers v World Hosts Pty Ltd ( 1979 ) 141 CLR 632.38 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd V Commonwealth ( 1992 ) 177 CLR 106.39 O & # 8217 ; Meara, S. op.cit. 105.40 Theophanous V Herald & A ; Weekly Times Ltd ( 1994 ) 124 ALR 1.41 Stephens V West Australian Newspapers Ltd ( 1994 ) 124 ALR 80.42 O & # 8217 ; Meara, S. op.cit. 105-115.43 Bartlett, P. Australian Lawyer vol 28, no 11 1994. p22-24.44 O & # 8217 ; Meara, S. op.cit. 106-111.45 Hogben, B. op.cit. 383-385.46 Brennan, D. op.cit. 153.47 Williamson, S. Law Institute Journal vol 67, no 3 1993. p131-133.48 Randall, N. Teach Yourself the Internet: Around the World in 21 yearss ( Indianapolis: Sams Publishing, 1994 ) 5-9.49 Rose, L. Netlaw: Your right in the Online World ( Berkeley: Osborne McGraw-Hill, 1995 ) 15-17.50 Hughes, G. Law Institute Journal vol 68, no 12 1994, p1152-1153.51 Rindos V Hardwick Unreported Supreme Court of Western Australia instance. Judgement delivered on 31 March 1994. ( This can be found on the unreported opinions Cadmium ROM in the James Cook University Library ) .BibliographyArmstrong, A. & A ; Watterson, R. Media Law in Australia. Oxford University Press, London, 1983.Baker, C. Tort ( 5th Ed. ) . Sweet & A ; Maxwell, London, 1991.Bartlett, P. & # 8216 ; Strong signal on freedom of address: The High Court & # 8217 ; s message to politicians and Judgess & # 8217 ; . Australian Lawyer, vol. 29, no. 11, December 1994, pp. 22-24.Brandis, G. The Queensland Lawyer, vol. 12, no. 5, 1992, pp. 169.Brennan, D. & # 8216 ; Defamation Law & # 8217 ; . Monash University Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1, 1994, pp. 153.Clark, P. & A ; Stephenson, G. Law of Torts ( 3rd Ed. ) . Blackstone Press, London, 1991.Davis, L. Law Institute Journal, 1991, pp. 1995.Editorial & # 8216 ; Free Speech and Reputation & # 8217 ; . The Age, 12 June 1979, pp. 11.Fleming, J. The Law of Torts ( 17th Ed. ) . Law Book Co. , Sydney, 1987.Gibson, J. ( erectile dysfunction ) Aspects of the Law of Defamation in New South Wales. Australian Print Group, Sydney, 1990.Heerey, P. University of Tasmania Law Review, vol 11, 1992, pp. 23.Hogben, B. & # 8216 ; Defamation: a journalist & # 8217 ; s viewpoint & # 8217 ; . Law Institute Journal, vol. 58, no. 4, April 1984, pp. 383-385.Hughes, G. & # 8216 ; Computer offense and TQM & # 8217 ; . Law Institute Journal, vol. 68, no. 12, December 1994, pp. 1152-1153.Kidner, R. Journal of Business Law, 1992, pp. 577.Kirby, M. & # 8216 ; Reform of Australia & # 8217 ; s Defamation Laws & # 8217 ; . Federal Law Review, vol. 8, 1977, pp. 122.Kirby, M. Reform the Law. Oxford University Press, London, 1983.Luntz, H. & A ; Hambly A. Torts: Case and Commentary ( 3rd Ed. ) . Butterworths, Sydney 1992.Morison, W. & A ; Sappideen, C. Torts: Commentary and Materials ( 7th Ed. ) . Law Book Co. , Sydney, 1989.O & # 8217 ; Meara, S. & # 8216 ; Theophanous and Stephens: The Constitutional Freedom of Communication and Defamation Law & # 8217 ; . Torts Law Journal, vol. 3, 1995, pp. 105-115.Rose, L. Netlaw: Your right in the Online World. Osborne McGraw-Hill, Berkeley, 1995.Rogers, W. The Law of Tort. Sweet & A ; Maxwell, London, 1989.Rutherford, L. & A ; Bone, S. Osbourne & # 8217 ; s Concise Law Dictionary ( 8th Ed. ) . Sweet & A ; Maxwell, London, 1993.Quinlan, S. & # 8216 ; Defamation: A New Chapter & # 8217 ; . Queensland Lawyer, vol. 15, no. 5, April 1995, pp. 153-154.Twomey, A. & # 8216 ; Theophanous v Herald Weekly Times Ltd: Stephens V West Australian Newspapers Ltd & # 8217 ; . Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 19, no. 4, 1994, pp. 1104-1113.Walker, S. & # 8216 ; The New South Wales Law Reform Commission & # 8217 ; s Discussion Paper on Defamation & # 8217 ; . Torts Law Journal, vol. 2, 1994, pp. 69-79.Watterson, R. & # 8216 ; What is Calumniatory Today? & # 8217 ; . Law Institute Journal, vol. 67, no. 11, November 1993, pp. 811-827.Williamson, S. & # 8216 ; Another hurdle overcome: The quest for unvarying calumny Torahs & # 8217 ; . Law Institute Journal, vol. 67, no. 3, March 1993, pp. 131-133. & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; Return to the Law Research Papers Index & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; & # 8212 ; Copyright 1995 & # 8211 ; All Rights Reserved