Defamation – cearta.ie

Winter is coming: the future of First Amendment analysis, and the prospects for New York Times v Sullivan, after NYSR&PA v Bruen

25 October, 202221 November, 2022

| 1A, Defamation, Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Expression, US Supreme Court

Cold winds now blow in the US Supreme Court around the stability of a century’s worth of First Amendment doctrine; even New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964), the most stable of that Court’s speech precedents, now seems in danger of being blown away in the storm, thanks to the recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen 597 US __ (2022) (Opinion pdf | Cornell | Justia | SCOTUSblog). In an earlier post on this blog, I considered the potential impact on the First Amendment of Thomas J’s originalist reasoning in the Second Amendment case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, and found some distinctly chilly zephyrs. Thomas J for the majority (Roberts CJ, and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett JJ concurring) held that a restriction on carrying arms in public for self-defense reasons was inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation and was thus unconstitutional. Thomas J explicitly eschewed any standard of review such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it was with this that the minority (Breyer J; Sotomayor and Kagan JJ concurring) took most issue. This is nuts. Worse, in Bruen, Thomas J asserted some similarities in analysis between the Second Amendment and the First.…

Blooming Lawyers: from Sadgrove v Hole, via Palles CB and Ulysses, to Facebook

10 October, 202210 October, 2022

| 2 Comments

| Christopher Palles, Defamation, Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, James Joyce

Palles and Joyce (images via Wikipedia, edited) I was reminded (plug alert) of my piece “The Aeolus Episode in Ulysses and the Freeman’s Journal: Chief Baron Palles and the law of defamation”, chapter 12 in Oonagh B Breen & Noel McGrath (eds) Palles. The Legal Legacy of the last Lord Chief Baron (Four Courts Press, 2022) (noted here), when I had the pleasure of reading the recent re-publication of Brian McMahon’s article (first published: Law Society Gazette, October 2004, 12), focusing on Dublin’s legal fraternity in Ulysses by James Joyce (pictured left, on the right).

To celebrate the 100th anniversary this year of the publication of Ulysses by Syliva Beach in Paris, this month’s Law Society Gazette (October 2022 (pdf), 41) has reproduced McMahon’s excellent and entertaining article.

Here are some extracts from it about three minor elements of the book that raise interesting issues of a legal nature:

James Joyce’s Ulysses is set in Dublin on 16 June 1904, and its two principal characters are Leopold Bloom and Stephen Dedalus. Bloom is the novel’s hero, and his journey around Dublin echoes Odysseus’ journey in Homer’s Odyssey. …

… Martin Cunningham tells … Bloom, how Reuben J’s son tried to commit suicide by jumping into the Liffey, but was saved by a workman who was rewarded with a florin.

…

The Aeolus Episode in Ulysses and the Freeman’s Journal: Chief Baron Palles and the law of defamation

16 June, 202226 July, 2022

| 1 Comment

| Christopher Palles, Defamation, Defamation, James Joyce

Bloomsday 2022 is a good day to note the imminent publication the following (from the introduction and conclusion; footnotes mostly omitted):

The Aeolus Episode in Ulysses and the Freeman’s Journal: Chief Baron Palles and the law of defamation

Christopher Palles is one of the many real Dubliners in Joyce’s Ulysses. The title refers to the Roman name of a Greek hero, Odysseus; and the novel roughly corresponds to various episodes in Homer’s Odyssey, telling the story of Dublin through the wanderings of Leopold Bloom (Homer’s Odysseus) on 16 June 1904. In the Odyssey, Aeolus, the warden of the winds, seeks to help Odysseus. In the Aeolus episode in Ulysses, Bloom visits his workplace, the Freeman’s Journal, and almost crosses paths with Stephen Dedalus (Homer’s Telemachus, the other great protagonist in Ulysses).

In the Aeolus episode, many of the novel’s characters discuss the issues of the day in the Journal’s offices. J.J. O’Molloy (a once-promising lawyer now fallen on hard times) interrupts Professor MacHugh’s discourse on the grandeur that was Rome, to ask ‘Do you know that story about chief baron Palles? … It was at the royal university dinner. Everything was going swimmingly …’.

…

Defamation reform will go to Cabinet tomorrow – and it will include anti-SLAPP provisions! — Updated: it’s been postponed by a week

21 February, 202223 February, 2022

| 1 Comment

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation, Defamation, Libel tourism

By way of update to my previous post wondering whether we will see Cabinet approve the drafting of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill before the end of the month, it seems increasingly likely that the answer is: yes, we will, and may even see it tomorrow. Both Mark Tighe in yesterday’s Sunday Times (sub req’d), and Jennifer Bray in today’s Irish Times, report that Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee (pictured right) will bring a package of proposals for reform of Ireland’s defamation laws to Cabinet tomorrow. Shane Phelan has a similar report in the Sunday Independent; and Elaine Loughlin has a similar report in the Irish Examiner.

This week’s reports are similar to those of Hugh O’Connell in the Sunday Independent a week ago as noted in my previous post, with one very important addition. The proposed reforms follow on from a statutory review of the operation of the Defamation Act 2009 (also here) that was probably completed in 2020 but has yet to be published; and, in my post on O’Connell’s report, I commented that if the review had recommended provisions to control strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), I would have expected O’Connell to have said so.…

Will we see Cabinet approve the drafting of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill before the end of the month?

14 February, 202222 February, 2022

| 1 Comment

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation, Defamation

A report by Hugh O’Connell in yesterday’s Sunday Independent suggests that the answer to the question in the title of this post is: yes, we may very well see Cabinet approve the drafting of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill before the end of the month. He reports that the Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, will bring to Cabinet the outcome of a statutory review (including a stakeholder symposium) of the operation of the Defamation Act 2009 (also here) and a general scheme of the Heads of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2022 based on the review’s recommendations. This is exciting news, but I’m not going to get too carried away, because we have been here many times before. Last March, on this blog, I bemoaned the many false dawns in Irish defamation law reform. Then, in July, I posed the question “Who will come first, Godot, or an Irish Minister for Justice bearing defamation reform?”. So far, we’ve seen neither; but O’Connell’s report suggests we might just soon see the latter.

The Defamation Act 2009 had been signed by the President on 23 July 2009, and it came into force on 1 January 2010. Section 5 (also here) requires the Minister to commence a review of the operation of the Act “not later than 5 years after the passing of this Act”, and to complete that review within a year.…

If Equity can develop new orders when necessary, can it develop anti-SLAPP orders? Part 1: new equitable orders

12 August, 202118 August, 2021

| 2 Comments

| Defamation

In a tweet a little while ago, I wondered:

If Equity can develop new orders/injunctions when necessary (eg Cartier v BT [2018] UKSC 28 [15] (Sumption)), can it develop anti-SLAPP orders?

The answer to this question falls into two stages. The first, which I will consider in this post, is the extent to which equity can generate a new order or injunction. If it can, then the second stage, which I will consider in a future post, is whether it can develop a new order or injunction to prevent strategic lawsuits against public participation (anti-SLAPP orders).

The answer to question whether equity can generate a new order or injunction, and the background to Cartier, begins with section 25(8) of the Judicature Act, 1873, which provided that a “mandamus or an injunction may be granted or a received appointed by an interlocutory order of the court in all cases in which it shall appear to the court to be just and convenient”. In Beddow v Beddow (1879) 9 Ch D 89 (pdf), Jessel MR held that if “this can be done on by interlocutory application a fortiori it can be done at the trial of the action”.…

Who will come first, Godot, or an Irish Minister for Justice bearing defamation reform? – updated

20 July, 202129 July, 2021

| 2 Comments

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation

Two years ago, the EU established the European Rule of Law Mechanism as a process of dialogue on rule of law issues between the EU institutions, the Member States, and civil society. 2020 saw the first of the annual reports. One of the issues highlighted in the report for Ireland related to the long-stalled process of defamation reform. In the intervening year, nothing has happened on the issue (understandably: there’s been a pandemic). However. it does feature in the Department of Justice Action Plan for this year, so the Commission, regarding the glass as half-full, has chosen to accept that at face value, and to welcome the prospect of reform before the end of the year:

… Amendments to the Defamation Act, foreseen for adoption in the coming months, are expected to have a positive impact on the operation of journalists. … Following the announcement of the plans to revise the 2009 Defamation Act¹¹¹, the Irish Government is finalising a statutory review. A new Scheme of Defamation could be presented by the end of 2021. As highlighted by stakeholders¹¹², the current regime enables to impose a disproportionately high amount of damages for defamation, which can have a negative impact on journalistic freedom.

…

Irish defamation reform: SLAPPs, false dawns, and silver linings

9 March, 202119 March, 2021

| 3 Comments

| 2016-17 Reform, Defamation, Defamation, Defamation Act 2009

In an interview in this morning’s Irish Times, the EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders (pictured right) raised serious concerns about the operation of Ireland’s defamation laws:

Ireland’s defamation laws are being used to ‘pressure journalists’ – EU commissioner

Low bar for lawsuits in Ireland ‘raises concerns’ over freedom to expose corruption

Ireland’s defamation laws should be reviewed as they may suppress the ability of the media to expose corruption … Irish defamation laws are notoriously strict, providing a low bar for lawsuits against journalists and media organisations that are often used to put pressure on journalists.

He made the same points later this afternoon when he addressed the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs. In his opening statement (draft here; pdf) he repeated that “Ireland’s defamation laws raise concerns as regards the ability of the press to expose corruption” (p6) and that “the frequent use and high costs of defamation cases raise concerns” (p7; update: reported Irish Examiner | Irish Independent | TheJournal.ie).

In questions from members of the Committee, Senator Michael McDowell commented that he had been the Minister for Justice who started the reform in the early 2000s (full disclosure, I was on the Group that advised him in this regard), and he agreed with the Commissioner that “Irish defamation law is a little bit suffocating of investigative journalism” and that there “is scope for further reform”.…