'Because the law of defamation is about reputation and thus necessarily about community and social attitudes, Baker's serious empirical analysis of just those community and social attitudes about defamation and about reputation is a novel and important contribution to the literature on libel and slander. It will be a useful corrective to the various empirically unsupported assertions that dominate the court cases and the academic literature on the topic.' Frederick Schauer, University of Virginia, US 'This book shines a welcome light on a neglected area of defamation law: how juries and judges determine what it means to say a statement is defamatory. The author employs well-designed empirical research to provide concrete answers, and the reform he proposes is sensible and workable. The book should be must-reading for anyone who seeks to understand how the law does or does not protect reputation especially lawyers and judges who try libel cases.' David A. Anderson, University of Texas Law School, US 'When defamation jurors decide whether a statement about someone is "defamatory", the question for them to answer is whether it would generate disapproval among "ordinary reasonable people". It has generally been assumed that they answer this question correctly. What Roy Baker discovered through empirical research is that this assumption may often be wrong. This fascinating and important book sets out his findings, alongside a broad-ranging and perceptive analysis of the law's approach to defining "defamatory".' Michael Chesterman, The University of New South Wales, Australia 'This refreshingly original work is an essential addition to the libraries of all defamation aficionados. Through empirical evidence, including interviews with judges and practitioners, and surveys of the general public, Dr Baker convincingly demonstrates the human propensity to overestimate the negative effect that defamatory imputations may have on other people ("the third person effect"). The conventional "ordinary reasonable person" test becomes in practice an "ordinary unreasonable person" test, regrettably lowering the defamation threshold and further curtailing freedom of communication.' Michael Gillooly, The University of Western Australia The common law determines whether a publication is defamatory by considering how 'ordinary reasonable people' would respond to it. But how does the law work in practice? Who are these 'ordinary reasonable people' and what do they think? This book examines the psychology behind how judges, juries and lawyers decide what is defamatory. Drawing on a thorough examination of case law, as well as extensive empirical research, including surveys involving over 4,000 members of the general public, interviews with judges and legal practitioners and focus groups representing various sections of the community, this book concludes that the law reflects fundamental misperceptions about what people think and how they are influenced by the media. The result is that the law tends to operate so as to unfairly disadvantage publishers, thus contributing to defamation law's infamous 'chilling effect' on free speech. This unique and controversial book will appeal to judges, defamation law practitioners and scholars in various common law jurisdictions, media outlets, academics engaged in researching and teaching torts and media law, as well as those working within the disciplines of media or communications studies and psychology. Anyone concerned with the law's interaction with public opinion, as well as how people interpret the media will find much to interest them in this fascinating study.

A crucial and compelling account of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark Supreme Court case that redefined libel, from the Pulitzer Prize–winning legal journalist Anthony Lewis. The First Amendment puts it this way: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Yet, in 1960, a city official in Montgomery, Alabama, sued The New York Times for libel—and was awarded $500,000 by a local jury—because the paper had published an ad critical of Montgomery's brutal response to civil rights protests. The centuries of legal precedent behind the Sullivan case and the U.S. Supreme Court's historic reversal of the original verdict are expertly chronicled in this gripping and wonderfully readable book by the Pulitzer Prize Pulitzer Prize–winning legal journalist Anthony Lewis. It is our best account yet of a case that redefined what newspapers—and ordinary citizens—can print or say.

Should offence to religions be punishable by law, or does freedom of expression extend even to blasphemy? This book examines this question.

Landmark Cases in Defamation Law is a diverse and engaging edited collection that brings together eminent scholars from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand to analyse cases of enduring significance to defamation law. The cases selected have all had a significant impact on defamation law, not only in the jurisdiction in which they were decided but internationally. Given the formative influence of English defamation law in the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, the focus is predominantly on English cases, although decisions of the United States and Australia are also included in the collection. The authors all naturally share a common interest in defamation law but bring different expertise and emphasis to their respective chapters. Among the authors are specialists in tort law, legal history and internet law. The cases selected cover all aspects of defamation law, including defamatory capacity and meaning; practice and procedure; defences; and remedies.

Taking Robert Post's seminal article 'The Social Foundations of Reputation and the Constitution' as a starting point, this volume examines how the concept of reputation changes to reflect social, political, economic, cultural and technological developments. It suggests that the value of a good reputation is not immutable and analyzes the history and doctrines of defamation law in the US and the UK. A selection of Australian case studies illustrates different concepts of defamation law and offers insights into their specific nature. Drawing on approaches to celebrity in media and cultural studies, the author conceptualizes reputation as a media construct and explains how reputation as celebrity is of great contemporary relevance at this point in the history of defamation law.

Slander and libel cases are largely about how one party uses language in ways that are claimed to defame one another. Linguistic expertise can be central to the case. In The Language of Defamation Cases, Roger W. Shuy describes eleven representative lawsuits--involving newspapers, television stations, religious leaders, physicians, teachers, entertainers, unions, insurance companies, and manufacturers--for which he served as a consultant. Shuy's linguistic analysis illustrates how grammatical referencing, speech acts, discourse structure, framing, conveyed meaning, intentionality, and malicious language affected the outcome of these cases. The Language of Defamation Cases shows how linguistics can be used to help resolve libel and slander cases. It will appeal to students and scholars of applied linguistics and forensic linguistics.