بحران پاسخگویی دموکراتیک: قانون افترا عمومی و عملکرد نظارتی مطبوعات

Présentation de l'éditeur : "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." Contents Table of Cases Table of Statutes Tables and Figures Introduction 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 Overlooking the Checking Function of the Press 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 Index Présentation de l'éditeur : "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." "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'."--Preliminary page