|
The criminal statutes protecting nobility from criticism in 16th and 17th century England eventually evolved into various categories of political libel (see slander and libel for the modern incarnation of this law). Cases of political libel and eventually damages actions were handled by the infamous Star Chamber until its abolition in 1641. By the end of that century, many elements of the common law of libel had been established. Modern slander and libel law evolved since then to mostly eradicate the use of libel laws to intimidate active political participants during a public debate. Accordingly this is now a matter of historical interest only in all jurisdictions other than Canada, where use of the law by government, political and religious groups is common, and often used against defendants outside Canada. == No longer exists in most English speaking jurisdictions == In most developed countries, a combination of discouragement to vexatious litigation, general recognition of chilling effects, and sometimes formal definition of a strategic lawsuit against public participation, serve to limit politically motivated libel suits. Many attorneys advise strongly against filing any suit against critics with political motivations. The McLibel case is usually cited as libel law backfiring. Many jurisdictions established such difficult tests for application of libel law to political statements, even exempting specific types or processes of criticism, that any specifically or overtly political comment has been effectively exempted from tort law: *Recognizing the chilling effect of such laws, American courts reformed libel law to protect free speech on matters of public interest, where plaintiffs bear onus of proving falsehood, fault and damage. All statements of opinion are immune from liability. This includes almost all political statements. *In Australia the traditional common law was deemed to be “tilted too far against free communication.”〔Theophanous p. 20〕 and courts recognized privileges for political discussion and eventually a new 2006 uniform Defamation Act in Australia. *In 2001, the British House of Lords recognized in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd a new test for a case-by-case privilege for publications which, though otherwise actionable, dealt with a matter of public concern in a manner which was reasonable and balanced in all the circumstances. They recognized an obligation to protect journalism. *New Zealand's Defamation Act includes a qualified privilege for non-reckless and non-sentimental statements about political figures. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Political libel」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|