TY - JOUR
T1 - Taming the ‘Chilling Effect’ of Defamation Law
T2 - English Experience and Implications for Australia
AU - Gligorijevic, Jelena
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2022.
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - The ‘chilling effect’ of defamation law has driven legislative action narrowing this tort’s scope and operation. As substantial reforms come into effect across Australia, this article provides a detailed analysis of how defamation law in the United Kingdom has developed since similarly narrowing reforms took effect there almost a decade ago, and the implications this will have for Australia. Two important aspects of reform in both jurisdictions are the serious harm threshold and the public interest defence. Both are targeted at narrowing the tort and taming its ‘chilling effect’. Although both of these two changes have definitively narrowed the tort in the United Kingdom, neither of them has revolutionised this tort nor abolished its core purpose to protect reputation against false imputations. Given the consistency in legislative purpose and framing of the new provisions as between the two jurisdictions, Australian courts should, consistently with their English counterparts, exercise caution when interpreting the new threshold and the new defence, to ensure they do not tread too far from the deeper principles underpinning the tort, even in its narrower, tamer form.
AB - The ‘chilling effect’ of defamation law has driven legislative action narrowing this tort’s scope and operation. As substantial reforms come into effect across Australia, this article provides a detailed analysis of how defamation law in the United Kingdom has developed since similarly narrowing reforms took effect there almost a decade ago, and the implications this will have for Australia. Two important aspects of reform in both jurisdictions are the serious harm threshold and the public interest defence. Both are targeted at narrowing the tort and taming its ‘chilling effect’. Although both of these two changes have definitively narrowed the tort in the United Kingdom, neither of them has revolutionised this tort nor abolished its core purpose to protect reputation against false imputations. Given the consistency in legislative purpose and framing of the new provisions as between the two jurisdictions, Australian courts should, consistently with their English counterparts, exercise caution when interpreting the new threshold and the new defence, to ensure they do not tread too far from the deeper principles underpinning the tort, even in its narrower, tamer form.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132029054&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0067205X221086671
DO - 10.1177/0067205X221086671
M3 - Article
SN - 0067-205X
VL - 50
SP - 221
EP - 248
JO - Federal Law Review
JF - Federal Law Review
IS - 2
ER -