• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Defamation - it will be interesting to make compare the defamation law in the Russian legal system and the defamation law in the English legal system, as they are both part of completely different legal traditions. By examining these two different jurisdi

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Westminster International University in Tashkent Commercial Law 2010 - 2011 To be completed by the student Student's ID number 00001313 Module name Tort Law Module code 1UZB404 Tutor Malika Mukimova Individual assignment ? Group assignment ( Submission deadline I certify that all material in this coursework which is not my own work has been acknowledged and I am fully aware of the consequences of plagiarism. Signed For Academic Registrar use only Contents: Contents: 1 I. Introduction: 2 II. Defamation law in England: 2 I. General overview (Defamation and Free Speech): 2 II. Defences: 3 III. Defamation in Russian Law 4 I. General Overview (defamation and free speech): 4 II. Defences: 5 IV. Evaluation: 5 V. Bibliography: 7 I. Introduction: The basis of modern society is formed by the fundamental human right of freedom of speech. The importance of having this fundamental right is immense. In order for this world to continue modernizing, it is very important to let every individual voice his/her opinion. However, in certain situations what one person says (intentionally or unintentionally) might harm the reputation of another person. I believe that defamation law and freedom of speech are two different sides of the same coin. They always go together, yet talk about two contradicting concepts. If freedom of speech gives everyone the right to express themselves, then defamation limits this right, in order to protect the reputation of individuals from being harmed. ...read more.

Middle

Defamatory statements made on a privileged occasion are not actionable. Privileged occasions are those, where public interest in freedom of speech is such that it overrules any concerns as to the effect of this freedom on the claimant's reputation.5 There are two types of privileges, absolute and qualified. Absolute privilege applies to statements made in Parliament, court hearings, any document ordered to be published by House of Parliament and communications between certain officers of state. Qualified privilege applies to an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty (legal, social, or moral) to make it to the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.6 The rationale for this is said to be the "common convenience and welfare of society". Unlike absolute privilege, the defence of qualified privilege will be defeated if malice is proved. Fair comment protects the defendant's right to criticize the claimant, which is why the defendant does not have to show that his/her words are true. However, this right to criticize is kept within strict boundaries. In order to qualify for this defence the defendant must prove that he/she was acting in public interest. Moreover the defendant should also show that the statement was based upon a set of facts and that the defendant honestly held that opinion. ...read more.

Conclusion

The main example would be placing the burden of proof on the defendant or assuming that the statement made by the defendant is false. I think that this places the defendant in an unfair position. In Russian law, the defences are very limited and the punishment is greater because defamation in Russian law is regarded as a criminal offence in certain cases. I think that defamation should not be regarded as a criminal offence under any circumstances because it "creates an impermissible "chilling effect" stemming the flow of protected speech".8 Moreover, the burden of proof shifts improperly, thus, requiring the defendant to prove his/her innocence. I believe that Russian defamation law needs to cut out defamation from criminal law completely. It can be seen that compared to English defamation law; Russian defamation law limits free speech to a greater extent. The main reasons are limited number of defences and defamation being a part of the criminal law. However, the Russian law has tried to improve the situation by implementing defamation in their Civil Code. The result of my research says, that despite the fact that the defences help to minimize the negative effect of defamation law on free speech it can be said that almost every legal system infringes free speech to some extent. The main reason for this is limited number of defences (in the case of Russian law) and in some cases the judges tend to favour the protection of reputation more than free speech. V. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Tort Assignment.

    5 star(s)

    33 Also, as mentioned earlier, 'it will no longer be permissible simply to have the action struck out on policy grounds as this would contravene article 6 of the European Convention.' 34 Another impact of the Human Rights Act is that 'an effective remedy is now provided by the HRA

  2. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    he did this in an unauthorised manner he was still acting within the scope of his employment so therefore he was acting within the scope of his employment, as he was just to look after the horse. It could be argued using this authority, that even though Pietro was not

  1. Negligence in law.

    They (the courts in Murphy) stated that liability would only be imposed if the facts of the particular case were analogous to an existing precedent. Caparo v. Dickman laid down 3 questions to be asked to determine a duty of care: 1. Was the damage to the plaintiff reasonable foreseen?

  2. Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They ...

    It was not foreseeable that an eruption would take place resulting in burns. Another problem is related to confusion as to whether in addition to being damage of a type which is foreseeable, the damage must occur in a foreseeable manner.

  1. Defamation Law

    In this paper, the researcher aims to examine the long standing debate regarding the tort of defamation - "the need for the existence of a distinction between the two forms of defamation 'Libel' and 'Slander'" and conclude as to the need and justification for such a distinction.

  2. In the generality of personal injury actions, it is of course true that ...

    Which, eventually also attract many attentions from academicians and legal actors as rebuttals have abundantly made, namely, the Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd22. This may be said as another prevailing view for now, which paves the way of thousand of similar cases, which happened also to be a medical

  1. Investigation into the law of Tort. The basis of Tort in the legal system ...

    He offers the view "...the province of tort is to allocate responsibility for injurious conduct."2 As highlighted earlier it is hard to define Tort, the main aspect that legal specialists do agree on, is that Tort does contain some element of damage or harm which occurs from an omission or an act itself.

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    the law deems responsible, those that have been injured.[39] The current law did not warrant this but restricting their claims; all should be done is that each claim is measured against the same legal principles, not categories.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work