text:
Unification of Karnataka
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry. To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and conform to the neutral point of view policy, please help to introduce a more formal style and remove any personally invested tone. (June 2008)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Present map of Karnataka. Only South Karnataka was Mysore State from 1947 to 1956.
Part of a series on the
History of Karnataka
Political history of medieval Karnataka
Origin of Karnataka's name
Kadambas and Gangas
Chalukya Empire
Rashtrakuta Empire
Western Chalukya Empire
Southern Kalachuri
Hoysala Empire
Vijayanagara Empire
Bahmani Sultanate
Bijapur Sultanate
Kingdom of Mysore
Nayakas of Keladi
Nayakas of Chitradurga
Haleri Kingdom
Unification of Karnataka
Categories
Architecture
Forts
Economies
Societies
v
t
e
The Unification of Karnataka (ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಏಕೀಕರಣ) refers to the formation of the Indian state of Karnataka, then named Mysore State, in 1956 when several Indian states were created by redrawing borders based on linguistic demographics. Decades earlier, during British rule the first demands for a state based on Kannada demographics had been made.
Contents
[hide]
1 Historical background
2 Role of North Karnataka
3 The Vidyavardhaka Sangha and other organisations
4 Karnataka Samithi (R), Kasaragod
5 Aluru Venkata Rao
5.1 Karnataka Gatha Vaibhava
6 Growth of the movement
7 Nagpur Conference
8 1924 Belagavi Conference
9 Nehru committee recommendation
10 1937 elections
11 1946 conference
12 Post Independence
12.1 Liberation of Hyderabad-Karnataka
12.2 The Dhar and JVP committee
12.3 The Fazal Ali Committee
13 Aftermath
14 Ekikarana Awards
15 See also
16 Notes
17 References
18 External links
Historical background[edit]
Territories before unification
During the period of British rule, areas that now comprise Karnataka were under as many as 20 different administrative units with the princely state of Mysore, Nizam's Hyderabad, the Bombay Presidency, the Madras Presidency and the territory of Kodagu being the most important ones. In effect, nearly two-thirds of what is now Karnataka fell outside the rule of the Wodeyar kings of Mysore.
This meant that the Kannadigas in these regions in spite of their large numbers they did not have an administrative patronage. Kannadigas in the Hubli-Karnataka region for example, came under the rule of the Bombay Presidency where Marathi was the official language. Those in the Hyderabad-Karnataka region came under the Nizam's rule where Urdu was the main language. Kannadigas in South Canara came under the rule from Madras Presidency which used Tamil as the main language.
Under these conditions, a feeling of discontent began among Kannadigas outside Mysore. Thus, while the Kannadigas under the Nizam felt that Urdu was being forced on them at the expense of Kannada, those in the Bombay Presidency felt similarly concerning Marathi.[1] These areas also remained economically undeveloped. It was in these conditions that the movement that first started as a protest against linguistic oppression, began demanding the creation of a separate state consolidating all Kannada-speaking regions. This was called the Ekikarana or 'Unification' movement.
Role of North Karnataka[edit]
Almost the entire southern half of Karnataka was then under the Wodeyars of Mysore with Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar . The official language of the state was Kannada and the state was also one of the more progressive states of the day.[citation needed] Important protagonists of the Ekikarana movement including Aluru Venkata Rao were from northern parts of Karnataka. One of the earliest and most important organisations that was chosen to lead the movement, the Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha also began in Dharwad.
The Vidyavardhaka Sangha and other organisations[edit]
Participants of the first Kannada Sahitya Parishat
The Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Dharwad was established in 1890. It was established by R H Deshpande with the objective of working for the resurgence of the Kannada language which had been marginalised under the rule of the Bombay Presidency where Marathi was the official language.[1] The Vidyavardhaka Sangha became the aegis under which leaders from all over Karnataka gathered to further their agitation. The influence and success of the Vidyavardhaka Sangha soon lead to more such organisations being set up throughout Karnataka. The most notable of these were the Kannada Sahitya Parishat (Bangalore) that was set up in 1915, the Karnataka Sangha (Shivamogga) that began in 1916 and the Karnataka Samithi in Kasaragod in 1955.
Karnataka Samithi (R), Kasaragod[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Karnataka Samithi (R), Kasaragod was established in 1955 to advocate a merger of Kasaragod with Karanataka state. Umesha Rao, popularly known as Gadinadu Gandhi, was the first president of the organisation and the only person to be elected to the Kerala Assembly unanimously. On his death in 1957, B. S. Kakkillaya succeeded him as president until 1967. A prominent figure in the movement for unification of Karnataka, Kakkillaya was later honoured by the government of Karnataka, which gave the Suvarna Karnataka Ekikarana Award to the Samithi on the occasion of Suvarna Karnataka Rajyotsava in 2006. His photograph was among those used in the Karnataka Government's Suvarna Karnataka calendar of 2006.
Kallige Mahabala Bhandari, an advocate, was elected to the Kerala Assembly from Manjeshwaram Constituency in Kasaragod under the Samithi banner. U. P. Kunikullaya was similarly elected in 1967. The efforts of the Samithi led to the Kasgarod unification issue being referred to the Justice Mahajan Commission by the government of India in 1966. B. V. Kakkillaya prepared a case for presentation before the commission, where K. R. Karanth, a former minister under Rajagopalachari in the then state of Madras and a leading advocate, represented the Samithi. The commission upheld the claim for merger of Kasaragod with the state of Karnataka. The Parliament of India is yet to take a final decision in the matter.
B. V. Kakkillaya took over the presidency of the Samithi in 2000. During his term as president, the government of Kerala nominated him as a member of the State Level Committee for Linguistic Minorities in Kerala. He, too, received the Rajyotsava award in 2006.
Aluru Venkata Rao[edit]
Although resentment and protest had started as early as in 1856 and the Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha had been established in 1890, the movement took a dramatic turn with the arrival of Aluru Venkata Rao on the scene. Speaking at a meeting of the Sangha in 1903, Alur Venkata Rao made a case for integrating all Kannada regions of Madras Province and north Karnataka with Mysore kingdom. Aluru himself was inspired by the protests that followed the British partitioning of Bengal.
In 1907 and again in 1908, Rao organised the All-Karnataka Writers' Conference in Dharwad. Inspired by the Vidyavardhaka Sangha and the efforts of Deshpande, Aluru helped found the Kannada Sahitya Parishat in Bangalore in 1915. This Parishat found a patron in the ruler of Mysore. The Parishat began holding annual literary conferences (that continue today) in different parts of the state. Intellectuals from across the Kannada speaking regions attended these conferences. During the Home Rule Movement, Aluru floated the idea of a Karnataka 'Provincial' unit of the Indian National Congress. This soon took shape and the Karnataka Pradesh Congress committee was formed.
Karnataka Gatha Vaibhava[edit]
Amidst all this, Aluru published his most renowned achievement, the Karnataka Gatha Vaibhava in 1912. Karnataka Gatha Vaibhava literally means The glory that was Karnataka!. It was a book that recounted in detail the history of Karnataka until the fall of Vijayanagar after which the Marathas, Nizam and the British took over. The book impacted the young and old alike. The movement soon caught the imagination of the public and people started rallying around the Ekikarana movement and the movement picked up momentum. For all these efforts and for being the one who inspired a whole movement, Aluru is today remembered as the Kannada Kula Purohita or the 'High priest of the Kannada clan'.
Karnataka region in pre-independent India which belonged to five states of British India
Growth of the movement[edit]
Starting with Aluru's call for a Kannada linguistic state, the movement had slowly started gaining momentum and following. It was also around the time that the Indian independence movement was gathering momentum. Organisations in the movement began organising rallies, talks and conferences where demands for a separate state for Kannada speaking people was made.
Apart from Aluru, supporters like Gudleppa Hallikeri, Siddappa Kambli, R H Deshpande, Rangarao Diwakar, Koujalgi Srinivasarao,Srinivas Rao Mangalvedhe, Kengal Hanumanthaiah, Gorur Ramaswamy Iyengar, S Nijalingappa, T Mariyappa, Subramanya, Sowcar Chennaiah, H K Veerangowda, H C Dasappa, H Siddaiah,K. R. Karanth, B. S. Kakkillaya, B. V. Kakkillaya and Anakru were by now prominent in the movement. Anakru in particular, was influential with his writing and oratory.
Nagpur Conference[edit]
Due to the efforts of these organisations and leaders, the movement not only gained in momentum but also attained a quasi-political influence. In 1920, Karnataka State Political Conference was held at Dharwad. At this conference, which was presided over by V P Madhav Rao, a unanimous resolution was passed demanding the unification of all Kannada speaking areas. The conference also advised Kannadigas to attend the Nagpur Congress to be held later that year in large numbers. Almost 800 delegates attended the Nagpur conference where the Indian National Congress made the decision to create the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee.This aided the movement and leaders of the Congress like S Nijalingappa and Kengal Hanumanthaiah (both of whom went on to become Chief Ministers of Karnataka) and Gudleppa Hallikeri also served as active members of the movement.
1924 Belagavi Conference[edit]
In 1924, the Belagavi congress was held under the aegis of the newly formed Karnataka Pradesh Congress committee arm of the INC. Mahatma Gandhi presided over this historic conference. This conference was attended by Kannadigas from all parts in large numbers. The first Karnataka Unification Conference was also organised at the same venue. This was presided over by Siddappa Kambli.
These two conferences were attended by a significant number of leaders, writers, poets and intellectuals from Karnataka. It was here that Huilgol Narayana Rao first sang his Udayavagali namma cheluva kannada nadu, which meant Let our charming Kannada land dawn!. The INC lent formal support to the cause; this was the first time the movement had explicit political support. As a result of these conferences, the Karnataka Ekikarana Sabha which was to work in collaboration with the KPCC began with the objective of the unification of Karnataka. The Karnataka Ekikarana Sabha later came to be known as the Karnataka Ekikarana Sangha.
Nehru committee recommendation[edit]
In 1928, due to the efforts of Gudleppa Hallikeri, the formation of a single province by uniting all Kannada speaking areas was recommended by the Nehru Committee. It was stated by the committee that there was a "strong prima facie case for unification". It also went on to state that it believed Karnataka could also be a financially strong province. This recommendation aided the movement. There was later support from literary figures like Kuvempu, Bendre, Gokak, S B Joshi, Betgeri Krishna Sharma, M Govinda Pai, Shivarama Karanth and Kayyara Kiyyanna Rai. There was also widespread support growing from the newspapers and media. Several smaller public and college organisations also began, notably in Bengaluru, Shivamogga and Raichur.
1937 elections[edit]
Following the Simon Commission, elections were held in 1937. The Congress said it would favour the formation of the separate Karnataka and Andhra states. This was met with some resistance from the British and also some of the princely states. While the princely states feared that they might stand to lose some territory, the British themselves were unsure of how they would handle the reorganisation.
Siddappa Kambli sensing the reluctance, decided that the movement had to approach the Simon Commission with their case. But the other leaders of the movement like Gangadhar Deshpande, Rangarao Diwakar, Koujalgi Srinivasarao and Aluru advised him not to do so as they had boycotted the commission. Gudlappa Hallikeri invited the Maharaja of Mysore to tour the Kannada speaking provinces of Bombay and Hyderabad. After the tour and several discussions the movement gained his active support.
1946 conference[edit]
The tenth conference of the Ekikarana movement was held on 10 January 1946 in Bombay. This conference was inaugurated by Sardar Patel and attended by the likes of B. G. Kher, the then Chief Minister of Bombay presidency. In his speech at the conference, Sardar Patel stated that the interests of all linguistic groups would be high on the list of priorities for the new government of independent India. This served to reduce the apprehensions of the movement leaders and the common people. This was also to have a bearing on the constituent assembly that met in the same year.
In the same year, the All-Karnataka convention, a gathering of Kannadigas was held in Davanagere, in central Karnataka. This was presided over by Mr. M P Patil, the revenue minister of Bombay. This convention attracted tens of thousands of Kannadigas from Karnataka. Leaders like Gudlappa Hallikeri, Kengal Hanumanthaiah, T Mariyappa, Subramanya, Sowcar Chennaiah, H K Veerangowda, H C Dasappa and H Siddaiah attended this convention and urged the constituent assembly to create the linguistic states.
Post Independence[edit]
Political Divisions of Karnataka post Independence.
India soon gained independence in 1947. The new government soon began delaying concerning the Karnataka Ekikarana movement. Kannada speaking areas were now grouped under five administrative units of the Bombay and Madras provinces, Kodagu, and the princely states of Mysore and Hyderabad. The Akhila Karnataka Ekikarana Parishat met in Kasargod and reiterated the demand for a separate state for Kannadigas.
Liberation of Hyderabad-Karnataka[edit]
While Karnataka became independent with the rest of the country on 15 August 1947, this did not occur in some parts of the state that were under the rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Hyderabad consisted of large portions of what were later to be the north eastern districts of Bidar, Gulbarga and Raichur of Karnataka state. The Lingayat minority in these regions also largely believed that they had been neglected and resented the oppression of the Nizam and the Razakars. The Nizam refused to accede to India until his rule was overthrown by force. Following the 'police action' against the Nizam, Hyderabad province and its citizens became independent on 17 September 1948. This day is celebrated by the Karnataka government as the Hyderabad-Karnataka liberation day.[2]
The Dhar and JVP committee[edit]
In the same year, the government appointed the Dhar commission to look into the demands of the Ekikarana movement as well as those of the other parallel movements in the other states. The Dhar commission in its report, opposed any reorganisation of the states. This was criticised by all quarters including the Jaipur Congress.
The government now formed the 'JVP' committee. This committee had Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhai Patel and Dr Pattabhi Sitaramayya on the board. This committee examined the demands again and created a report. The JVP report, however, favoured only the creation of the Andhra state while the Karnataka Ekikarana movement was deliberately ignored. The Ekikarana movement saw this as a betrayal of the Congress which had declared the creation of linguistic provinces as one of its goals in its 1951 manifesto.
The movement now formed the Karnataka Ekikarana Paksha to contest the 1951 polls. This was supported by literary figures as well as politicians like Gudlappa Hallikeri, Kengal Hanumantayya, S Nijalingappa and C M Poonacha, the Chief Minister of Kodagu.
The Fazal Ali Committee[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In January 1953, at the Congress session in Hyderabad, a resolution was also passed favouring the creation of Andhra Pradesh but not Karnataka. A. J. Dodmeti, a senior Congress leader and the member of the Bombay assembly, immediately resigned from his seat and launched a hunger strike at Jakkali in Dharwad. This was widely supported. In the riots at Hubli that followed, many people were injured and several courted arrest.
In the Hubli-Dharwad by-elections that followed, the Congress were defeated while the Karnataka Ekikarana Paksha's candidate won by a landslide. Under pressure, Prime Minister Nehru constituted the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC), also known as the Fazal Ali commission due to being headed by Justice Fazal Ali. At the same time, the Mysore government appointed a fact-finding committee, headed by M. Sheshadri. The SRC opposed the unification but its findings were ignored due to overwhelming support in favour from Mysoreans such as Mokshagundam Visvesvaraya.
Congress leader Gudlappa Hallikeri furthered the cause of unification within his party by advocating for states based on linguistic demographics. He also represented and urged unification in front of the SRC. The SRC eventually recommended the reorganisation of the states based on linguistic demographics and this was soon ratified in parliament.
Aftermath[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The ratification in parliament of the recommendations of the SRC was reacted to positively by Kannadiga people, although there was also disappointment at the non-inclusion of certain parts of Mysore state. Most notable among the excluded areas was Kasargod, which had been one of the centres from which the Ekikarana movement had launched its agitation. This is an issue that continues to affect those who fought for the unification of Karnataka.
On 1 November 1973, under Devaraj Urs as Chief Minister, Mysore state was renamed as Karnataka, which was considered[by whom?] to be a more inclusive name than Mysore.
Ekikarana Awards[edit]
To mark the celebrations of the 50th year of Karnataka's unification, the state government headed by the then Chief Minister H D Kumarswamy awarded 36 individuals and 4 organisations with the Ekikarana Award for the service they had rendered for uniting Karnataka.
The Karnataka Vidyavardhaka Sangha, Dharwad and the Kannada Sahitya Parishat, Bengalooru (that Aluru once assisted and headed) and Karnataka Samithi (R), Kasaragod were included among the recipients.
See also[edit]
Mysore (disambiguation)
History of Hyderabad
Karnataka History Timeline
Notes[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b "Contributing to the cause". Deccan Herald. 1 November 2005. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
Jump up ^ "Hyderabad Karnataka Liberation Day to be celebrated in Bidar on September 17". The Hindu. 13 September 2006. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
References[edit]
A detailed account of the Ekikarana movement in the Deccan Herald
An article about the Vidyavardhaka Sangha in the Deccan Herald detailing the unification of Karnataka
Details of the Liberation Day celebrations in The Hindu
Contributing to the cause - An article in the Deccan Herald detailing the struggle for unification
An article in The Hindu throwing light on the 'liberation' of Nizam's territories
Mention of the Fazal Ali report - The Hindu
Unification and Congress support
External links[edit]
G B Pant's statement on reorganisation
Freedom fighters of Karnataka
Ekikarana awards list
[1]
[show]
v
t
e
Indian state of Karnataka
Overviews
Architecture
Cinema
Climate
Cuisine
Demography
Economy
Education
Folk Arts
Geography
History
Media
People
Sports
Transportation
Wildlife
History
Aihole
Alupa dynasty
Amoghavarsha
Badami
Banavasi
Balligavi
Belur
Chalukya dynasty
Chitradurga Nayakas
Deva Raya II
Durvinita
Halebidu
Haleri Kingdom
Halmidi
Hampi
Hoysala Empire
Kadamba dynasty
Kalyani Chalukyas
Keladi Nayakas
Shivappa Nayaka
Kittur Chennamma
Kingdom of Mysore
Mayurasharma
Pattadakal
Pulakeshin II
Rashtrakuta dynasty
Sringeri
Srirangapatna
Tipu Sultan
Unification of Karnataka
Vijayanagara Empire
Vijayanagara
Vishnuvardhana
Veera Ballala II
Vikramaditya II
Vikramaditya VI
Western Ganga dynasty
Geography
Cities and towns
Districts
Rivers
Dams and Reservoirs
Taluks
Villages
Highest point
Bayalu Seeme
Malenadu
Karavali
Western Ghats
Culture
Bharata Natyam
Bhuta Kola
Bidriware
Channapatna toys
Chitrakala Parishat
Gaarudi Gombe
Ilkal saree
Kamsale
Kannada
Karnatik music
Kasuti
Khedda
Mysore Dasara
Togalu Gombeyaata
Udupi cuisine
Veeragase
Yakshagana
Mysore musicians
Literature
Kannada
Milestones
Epics
Medieval
Rashtrakuta
Western Ganga
Western Chalukya
Hoysala
Vijayanagara
Vachana
Haridasa
Mysore
Play
Modern
Kannada Sahitya Parishat
Kannada Sahitya Sammelana
Karnataka
Noted poets
Asaga
Gunavarma I
Adikavi Pampa
Sri Ponna
Ranna
Devar Dasimayya
Basava
Akka Mahadevi
Allama Prabhu
Siddharama
Harihara
Raghavanka
Rudrabhatta
Janna
Kumara Vyasa
Chamarasa
Nijaguna Shivayogi
Ratnakaravarni
Purandara Dasa
Kanaka Dasa
Vijaya Dasa
Gopala Dasa
Jagannatha Dasa
Lakshmisa
Sarvajna
Shishunala Sharif
Krishnaraja Wadiyar III
D. R. Bendre
Gopalakrishna Adiga
K. S. Narasimhaswamy
M. Govinda Pai
Kuvempu
D. V. Gundappa
G. S. Shivarudrappa
People and Society
Karnataka ethnic groups
List of people from Karnataka
Tourism
Beaches
Dams
Forts
National Parks
Hindu Temples
Jain Temples
Waterfalls
Awards
Karnataka Ratna
Pampa Award
Nrupatunga Award
Basava Puraskara
Rajyotsava Prashasti
Jakanachari Award
Varnashilpi Venkatappa Award
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unification_of_Karnataka&oldid=806343927"
Categories:
History of Karnataka (1947–present)
Political history of Karnataka
Reorganisation of Indian states
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia articles needing style editing from June 2008
All articles needing style editing
Articles needing additional references from June 2008
All articles needing additional references
EngvarB from September 2013
Use dmy dates from September 2013
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009
Articles needing additional references from April 2015
Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from August 2015
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
ಕನ್ನಡ
Edit links
This page was last edited on 21 October 2017, at 11:28.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

tag: div

attr: id class

value: mw-page-base noprint

key: html

type: local

value: mw-head-base noprint

tag: a

attr: id class lang

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

tag: img

attr: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

tag: td

tag: span

attr: class role tabindex

value: mw-collapsible-toggle button 0

tag: b

attr: class href

attr: href title

tag: i

tag: small

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_style
mw-redirect
Wikipedia:Encyclopedic style

value:
plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style
presentation

value: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

value:
mw-collapsible
width:95%; margin: 0.2em 0;

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-multiple_issues compact-ambox

attr: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.2em;padding-top:0;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em;padding:0 5px; background: #EEDC82; font-size:135%

value:
/wiki/Haleri_Kingdom
mw-redirect
Haleri Kingdom

value: padding:0.1em;border-top: #EEDC82 1px solid; background:lightyellow

value: Category:Historical economies of Karnataka

value: Category:Historical Societies of Karnataka

value: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;background:lightyellow

value:
/wiki/Hyderabad_state
mw-redirect
Hyderabad state

value:
/wiki/Kannada_language
mw-redirect
Kannada language

value:
/wiki/Nalvadi_Krishnaraja_Wodeyar
mw-redirect
Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar

value: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2009)

value:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

value: Edit section: The Vidyavardhaka Sangha and other organisations

value:
/wiki/Kasaragod_Town
mw-redirect
Kasaragod Town

value: Edit section: Karnataka Samithi (R), Kasaragod

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Unreferenced

value:
/wiki/Home_Rule_Movement
mw-redirect
Home Rule Movement

value:
/wiki/Kengal_Hanumanthaiah
mw-redirect
Kengal Hanumanthaiah

value: Edit section: Nehru committee recommendation

value:
/wiki/Da_Ra_Bendre
mw-redirect
Da Ra Bendre

value:
/wiki/Shivarama_Karanth
mw-redirect
Shivarama Karanth

value: Gangadhar Deshpande (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/Sardar_Patel
mw-redirect
Sardar Patel

value: Edit section: Liberation of Hyderabad-Karnataka

value:
/wiki/Operation_Polo
mw-redirect
Operation Polo

value: Edit section: The Dhar and JVP committee

value:
/wiki/Pattabhi_Sitaramayya
mw-redirect
Pattabhi Sitaramayya

value:
/wiki/Devaraj_Urs
mw-redirect
Devaraj Urs

value: The material near this tag may use weasel words or too-vague attribution. (August 2015)

value: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

value: Karnataka Samithi (R), Kasaragod (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/Mysore_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Mysore (disambiguation)

value:
/wiki/History_of_Hyderabad,_India
mw-redirect
History of Hyderabad, India

value:
/wiki/Karnataka_History_Timeline
mw-redirect
Karnataka History Timeline

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

value:
/wiki/File:Seal_of_Karnataka.svg
image
Emblem of Karnataka

value:
/wiki/Cinema_of_Karnataka
mw-redirect
Cinema of Karnataka

value: List of dams and reservoirs in Karnataka

value:
/wiki/Bharata_Natyam
mw-redirect
Bharata Natyam

value: List of milestones in Kannada literature

value: List of Yakshagana plays in the Kannada language

value:
/wiki/List_of_beaches_in_Karnataka
mw-redirect
List of beaches in Karnataka

value: Category:Civil awards and decorations of Karnataka

value: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

value: Category:History of Karnataka (1947–present)

value: Category:Reorganisation of Indian states

value: Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing from June 2008

value: Category:All articles needing style editing

value: Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2008

value: Category:All articles needing additional references

value: Category:Use dmy dates from September 2013

value: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009

value: Category:Articles needing additional references from April 2015

value: Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from August 2015

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Unification_of_Karnataka
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

value: ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಏಕೀಕರಣ – Kannada

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Unification_of_Karnataka rootpage-Unification_of_Karnataka vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Five themes of geography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Location
Place
Human-Environment Interaction
Movement
Region
Five Themes of Geography is an educational tool for teaching geography. Adopted in 1984 by the Association of American Geographers, those five themes were published in the NCGE/AAG publication Guidelines for Geographic Education, Elementary, and Secondary Schools. Most American geography and social studies classrooms have adopted the five themes in teaching practices.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 Themes
1.1 Location
1.2 Place
1.3 Human-environment interaction
1.4 Movement
1.5 Region
2 References
Themes[edit]
The five-theme organizational approach was superseded by the Geography for Life standards published by the National Geographic Society United States Of America, a set of eighteen standards promulgated in 1994. However, the five themes continue to be used as an educational approach in many educational outlets.[1]
Five Themes:[2]
Location
Place
Human-Environment Interaction
Movement
Region
Location[edit]
Every point on Earth has a location. Location can be described in two different ways:
Absolute location, a location as described by its latitude and longitude on the Earth. For example, the coordinates of Albany, New York are 42.6525° N, 73.7572° W.
Relative location, a location as described by where it is compared to something else. For example, Albany, New York is roughly 140 miles north of New York City.
Place[edit]
A place is an area that is defined by everything in it. All places have features that give them personality and distinguish them from other places
Toponym: a place name, especially one derived from a topographical feature.
Site: an area of ground on which a town, building, or monument is constructed.
Situation: the location and surroundings of a place.
Population: the number of people that live in the area.
Human-environment interaction[edit]
Further information: human-environment interaction
This theme describes how people interact with the environment, and how the environment responds, with three key concepts:[3]
Dependency: Humans depend on the environment.
Adaptation: Humans adapt to the environment.
Modification: Humans modify the environment.
Movement[edit]
Movement is the travel of people, goods, and ideas from one location to another, or political events. Examples of movement include the United States' westward expansion, the Information Revolution, and immigration. New devices such as the airplane and the Internet allow physical and ideological goods to be transferred long distances in short time intervals. A person's travel from place to place, and the actions they perform there are also considered movement.
Example: Buses, Airplanes, Cars, and Boats.
Region[edit]
Regions are areas with distinctive characteristics: human characteristics, such as demographics or politics, and physical characteristics, such as climate and vegetation. For example, the US is a political region because it shares one governmental system.
References[edit]
Geography portal
Education portal
^ Jump up to: a b Ganzel, Karen. "Geography Lesson Plans Using Google Earth". Lesson Planet. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
Jump up ^ Rosenberg, Matt. "The Five Themes of Geography". About.com. Retrieved November 16, 2013.
Jump up ^ "The Five Themes of Geography" (PDF). Retrieved 2 June 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_themes_of_geography&oldid=815542629"
Categories:
Geography education
Association of American Geographers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 15 December 2017, at 13:45.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attr: href class

attr: class style

value: thumbcaption clear:left

value:
/wiki/Place_(geography)
mw-redirect
Place (geography)

value:
/wiki/Human-Environment_Interaction
mw-redirect
Human-Environment Interaction

value: Movement (geography) (page does not exist)

value: Edit section: Human-environment interaction

value:
/wiki/Human-environment_interaction
mw-redirect
Human-environment interaction

value:
/wiki/Good_(economics_and_accounting)
mw-redirect
Good (economics and accounting)

value:
/wiki/Westward_expansion
mw-redirect
Westward expansion

value:
/wiki/Information_Revolution
mw-redirect
Information Revolution

value: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

value: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

value: Category:Association of American Geographers

value:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Five_themes_of_geography
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Five_themes_of_geography rootpage-Five_themes_of_geography skin-vector action-view


text:
English defamation law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (April 2013)
(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Part of a series on common law
English tort law
Negligence
Duty of care
Bolam test
Breach of duty
Causation
Breaking the chain
Acts of the claimant
Remoteness
Professional negligence
Psychiatric harm
Loss of chance
Loss of right
Res ipsa loquitur
Eggshell skull
Trespass
Occupiers' liability
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
Occupiers' Liability Act 1984
Defamation
Strict liability
Vicarious liability
Rylands v Fletcher
Nuisance
v
t
e
Modern libel and slander laws, as implemented in many (but not all) Commonwealth nations as well as in the United States and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307),[citation needed] though it is unknown whether any generally applicable criminal process was in place. The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I (1603-1625).[citation needed] Scholars frequently attribute the strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of dueling. From that time, we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual(s) (under English law companies are legal persons, and may bring suit for defamation[1][2][3]) in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e., whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e., whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). A private individual must only prove negligence (not exercising due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable and unrecognizable by U.S. courts if they don't comply with U.S. protections for freedom of speech and due process, and was made largely in response to the English laws.[4]
The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
1.1 Volume of litigation
1.2 Criminal offence
2 Present law
2.1 Slander actionable per se
2.2 Publication in a permanent form
2.3 Burden of proof on the defendant
2.4 Defences
2.4.1 Justification
2.4.1.1 Where the words contain more than one charge
2.4.1.2 Spent convictions
2.4.2 Fair comment
2.4.3 Absolute privilege
2.4.4 Qualified privilege
2.4.5 Innocent dissemination
2.4.6 Apology and payment into court for newspaper libel
2.4.7 Limitation
2.4.8 Death of the plaintiff
2.5 Damages
2.5.1 Mitigation of damages
2.6 Consolidation of actions
2.7 Reforms in 2013
3 Cases
3.1 Aldington v Tolstoy
3.2 The 'McLibel' case
3.3 Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt
3.4 Funding Evil case
3.5 The Simon Singh case
3.6 Cycling and doping
4 Cases not in court
4.1 Child sexual abuse
5 Privacy
6 Proposals to amend the law
6.1 The Porter Committee
6.2 The Faulks Committee
6.3 The Libel Reform Campaign
6.4 Legal aid
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
History[edit]
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many (but not all) Commonwealth nations as well as in the United States and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law.
The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent as far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307).[citation needed] There was no distinction drawn between written and spoken words, and when no pecuniary penalty was involved, such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which were only finally abolished in the eighteenth century. It seems uncertain whether or not any generally applicable criminal process was in place.
The crime of scandalum magnatum (spreading false reports about the magnates of the realm) was established by the Statute of Westminster 1275, c. 34, but the first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law is one tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I.[citation needed] In that particular case, no English authorities are cited, except for a previous case of the same nature before the same tribunal; the law and terminology appear to be taken directly from Roman sources,[citation needed] with the insertion that libels tended to cause a breach of the peace, and it seems probable that a not-too-scrupulous tribunal had simply found it convenient to adopt the very stringent Roman provisions regarding the libelli famosi without paying any regard to the Roman limitations. From that time, we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.
Volume of litigation[edit]
An increase in defamation litigation has been noted in England from the early seventeenth century. In the south of England, this litigation rose most sharply in cases of sexual slander and were notable for the increasing number of women pursuing litigation in defence of their sexual reputation. In one respect, this pattern has been linked with increasing legal access for women. In another respect, however, it has been linked to the rise of "middling" traders in urban centres and an increasing concern with the defence of family reputation in which a woman's sexual integrity was coterminous with the integrity of her household. A similar pattern has been noted in the northern English jurisdictions but this rise seems not to have occurred until the latter years of the seventeenth century.[citation needed]
Criminal offence[edit]
See defamatory libel.
Present law[edit]
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation)[1] [2][3] in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
A is liable for saying anything to C about B which would be apt to make the average citizen think worse of the latter.
—  Tony Weir, Tort Law p.162
A statement can include an implication; for instance, a photograph of a particular politician accompanying a headline reading "Corrupt Politicians" could be held as an allegation that that politician was personally corrupt. Once it is shown that a statement was published, and that it has a defamatory meaning, that statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant is able to raise a defence to his defamatory act.
Under English law, because companies are legal persons they can sue on the basis of libel the same as natural persons. Cases supporting this principle go as far back as the 19th century, such as South Hetton Coal Co. Ltd. v. North Eastern News Ass'n Ltd. [1894], and extend to more recent cases such as Bognor Regis U.D.C. v. Campion [1972][1] and the McLibel case, when McDonald's sued several protesters.
The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the Internet were public enough for libel to take place.[8]
Slander actionable per se[edit]
The following are actionable without proof of special damage/actual damage:
Words imputing a crime punishable with imprisonment
Words imputing certain diseases
Words disparaging a person in his office, calling or profession, see section 2 of the Defamation Act 1952. Also at common law.
In 1975 the Faulks Committee recommended that the distinction between libel and slander should be abolished, and that slander should be assimilated to libel.[9]
Publication in a permanent form[edit]
As to what constitutes publication in a permanent form for the purpose of the law relating to libel, see section 166(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 and sections 4(1) and (3) and (7) of the Theatres Act 1968. See formerly section 1 of the Defamation Act 1952.
Burden of proof on the defendant[edit]
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory. These things are generally relatively easy to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the statement was false. Instead, proving the truth of the statement is an affirmative defence available to the defendant.
Because proving the truth or falsity of the statement is often extremely difficult (and the defendant does not generally have the ability to force the claimant to disclose materials that might help prove it[citation needed]) it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant.
Defences[edit]
Justification[edit]
A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves on the balance of probabilities that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages. A statement quoting another person cannot be justified merely by proving that the other person had also made the statement: the substance of the allegation must be proved.
The Defamation Act 2013 replaced this defence with the defence of truth.
Where the words contain more than one charge[edit]
In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification does not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges.[10] In other words, to succeed in their defence of justification, the defendant need not prove every charge to be true, just enough of the charges so that the remaining charges do not on their own constitute a material injury to the plaintiff's reputation.
Spent convictions[edit]
Section 8(3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 provides that nothing in section 4(1) of that Act prevents the defendant in any action for libel or slander begun after the commencement of that Act by a rehabilitated person, and founded upon the publication of any matter imputing that the plaintiff has committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for an offence which was the subject of a spent conviction, from relying on any defence of justification which is available to him, or restrict the matters he may establish in support of any such defence.
But a defendant in any such action is not, by virtue of the said section 8(3), entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice.[11][12] The Act does not apply to offences that warrant a 4-year prison sentence or more, which can never be spent.
Fair comment[edit]
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2009)
Main article: Fair comment § United Kingdom
This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff. The fair comment defence is sometimes known as "the critic's defence" as it is designed to protect the right of the press to state valid opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity, political debate, public figures and general affairs. It also defends comments on works of art in the public eye such as theatre productions, music, and literature. However, fair comment, and justification defences will fail if they are based on misstatements of fact.
An example of this arose in London Artists Ltd v Littler (1969). When a whole group of actors resigned from a play the director wrote a letter to each of them and to their agent company, accusing them of plotting against him. The case was decided to be a matter of public concern because of the general interest in entertainment.
For an opinion to be fair comment it must be based upon facts, as highlighted in Kemsley v Foot [1952] A.C. 345. The politician and journalist Michael Foot had printed an article in Tribune, a left-wing newspaper, condemning the London Evening Standard for unethically publishing a certain story. Lord Kemsley, who owned other newspapers, maintained that the article's headline, "Lower than Kemsley", impugned the standards of the Kemsley press. The defence of fair comment was allowed to stand.
There is also no need for the perpetrator of the comment to actually believe in it as in court the comment will be measured according to an "objective" test. In Telnikoff v Matusevitch (1992), Telnikoff wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph criticising the BBC Russian Service for over-recruiting people from ethnic minority groups. Matusevitch replied accusing the claimant of being a racist. The House of Lords held that he had to show that the comment was based around the article, which would make it fair comment as it was possible most people would not know why he was making such a statement.
A defence of fair comment can fail if the defendant shows malice, as in Thomas v Bradbury, Agnew & Co. (1906); the defendant not only criticised the claimant's book but made many personal slurs against the author, invalidating the defence.
The Defamation Act 2013 replaced the common law defence of fair comment with the statutory defence of honest opinion.
Absolute privilege[edit]
Main article: Absolute privilege in English law
Further information: Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2009)
If the defendant's comments were made in Parliament, or under oath in a court of law, they are entitled to absolute privilege. This privilege is absolute: qualified privilege protects only the communication of the complained statement. There can be no investigation into whether remarks made in a situation of absolute privilege are defamatory.
Qualified privilege[edit]
Main article: Qualified privilege in English law
There are several situations where the defence of qualified privilege applies. Reports and remarks of Parliamentary proceedings, as well as reports of judicial proceedings attract qualified privilege. These have to be "fair and accurate"; as Lord Denning stated in Associated Newspaper Ltd v Dingle, if the writer "garnishes" and "embellishes" such reports with any form of circumstantial evidence, the defence cannot apply. Additionally, where there is a mutual interest between two parties, statements deemed to be defamatory are protected where it can be proved there is a duty to impart them. The case of Watt v Longsdon exemplifies this principle, and the limitations of it. Here, the director of a company informed the chairman of alleged sexual misconduct involving Watt. This communication was deemed privilege, but the informing of such suspicion to the claimant's wife was not.
The defence has seen expansion recently in light of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd,[13] where the House of Lords—drawing principally on Lord Nicholls' judgement—established that the mass media could be entitled to the defence, where criteria of "responsible journalism" (further expanded upon in Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd) were met. This expansion was confirmed in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe, and has been described as giving newspapers protections similar to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The defence used in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd was abolished by the Defamation Act 2013, Section 4 subsection 6. This does not have an effect on the common law defence based on a reciprocity of duty or interest as between the maker of the statement and the recipient,[14]
See section 15 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Defamation Act 1996. See also section 1(5) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, section 121 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, section 79 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and section 72 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
Innocent dissemination[edit]
Main article: Innocent dissemination
In general, everyone involved in the dissemination of the defamation is liable as having published it. But it has been held that some forms of distribution are so mechanical that the actor ought not to be held liable unless he/she ought to have realized that there was defamation involved. The defence is known as innocent dissemination or mechanical distributor.
Apology and payment into court for newspaper libel[edit]
See section 2 of the Libel Act 1843 and the Libel Act 1845. This defence has fallen into disuse. In 1975, the Faulks Committee recommended that it be abolished.[15]
Limitation[edit]
See section 4A(a) of the Limitation Act 1980.
Death of the plaintiff[edit]
See the proviso to section 1(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.
Damages[edit]
See also: Measure of Damages (under English law)
The level of damages awarded for defamation cases have been subject to sustained criticism from judges and academics.
Some have commented that libel damages are high compared to the sums awarded for personal injuries. In a consultation considering personal injury damages the Law Commission commented that:
The disparity between the sums of compensation awarded offends the proper relationship which ought to exist between pain, suffering and loss of amenity on the one hand and loss of reputation and injury to feelings on the other. A “wrong scale of values” is being applied.
citing various awards including: £350,000 in John v MGN [1992]; £200,000 Donovan v The Face Magazine [1993]; and £600,000 Sutcliffe v Private Eye [1989]. And contrasting these with a payment "in the region of £35,000 to £50,000" for "a person who loses a leg through amputation".[16]
However, the commission goes on to note that defamation damages have a "vindacatory element", and that notwithstanding comments from some judges (McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd, 1965), "the prevailing English judicial approach is that a valid comparison cannot be made between personal injury awards and damages for defamation". But concludes that, "we do not believe that such counter-arguments can explain, or indeed justify, a practice "whereby a plaintiff in an action for libel may recover a larger sum by way of damages for an injury to his reputation...than the damages awarded for pain and suffering to the victim of an industrial accident who has last an eye..."
In the ECHR case, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom[17] the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg added to the criticism of awards given by juries. Defamation is a curious part of the law of tort in this respect, because usually juries are present. The argument goes that juries, when deciding how much to award, will be told the awards in previous cases. They will have a tendency to push to the limits of what was awarded before, leading to a general upward drift of payouts. However, in John & MGN Ltd [1997] QB 586, the Court of Appeal laid down rules to constrain the jury's discretion, and give more comprehensive advice before juries decide.
Mitigation of damages[edit]
As to evidence of an apology, see section 1 of the Libel Act 1843. As to evidence of other damages recovered by the plaintiff, see section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952.
Consolidation of actions[edit]
As to consolidation of actions, see section 5 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 (libel) and section 13 of the Defamation Act 1952 (slander).
Reforms in 2013[edit]
On 25 April 2013 the Defamation Act 2013 was enacted. Among other things, it requires plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. In addition, it includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm, which in the case of for-profit bodies is restricted to serious financial loss. It removes the current presumption in favour of a Jury trial. It introduces new statutory defences of truth, honest opinion, and "publication on a matter of public interest", to replace the common law defences of justification, fair comment, and the Reynolds defence respectively, and a completely new defence applying to peer-reviewed publication in a scientific or academic journal.[18][19]
The removal of a right to trial by jury was enforced in the case Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Limited [2014] [20] The judge in this case denied the defendant a right to trial by jury, despite various arguments from the defence including: public interest due to the subject matter of the case; and the public role held by the claimant as a senior member of parliament, deeming arguments from case law ill-founded due to changes to underlying legislation. The judge argued that the Civil Procedure Rules encouraging "saving expense" and "ensuring that a case was dealt with expeditiously" supported a trial without jury.
Cases[edit]
Aldington v Tolstoy[edit]
Main article: Aldington v Tolstoy
In 1989, Toby Low, 1st Baron Aldington initiated and won a record £1.5 million (plus £500,000 costs) in a libel case against Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavsky and Nigel Watts, who had accused him of war crimes in Austria during his involvement in the Betrayal of the Cossacks at Lienz, Austria, at the end of World War II. This award, which bankrupted Tolstoy, was overturned by the European Court of Human Rights in July 1995 as "not necessary in a democratic society" and a violation of Tolstoy's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[21] This judgement significantly reduced the level of subsequent libel awards.
The 'McLibel' case[edit]
Main article: McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel
In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued David Morris and Helen Steel (known as the "McLibel Two") for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English legal history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sold unhealthy food, exploited its work force, practised unethical marketing of its products towards children, was cruel to animals, needlessly used up resources and created pollution with its packaging, and also was responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case.
Steel and Morris in turn sued the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights, asserting that their rights to free speech and a fair trial had been infringed. Their most important claims were that English libel law was unfair to defendants, that it was unfair to require two people of modest means to defend themselves against a large company without legal aid, and that the damages were not justified. The court found partly in their favour, and ruled that:[22]
The denial of legal aid left Steel and Morris unable to defend themselves effectively
Pressure groups should be permitted to report in good faith on matters of public interest, as journalists are
It was no defence that the pamphlet repeated claims already published, or that the defendants believed them to be true
It was reasonable to require the defendants to prove their claims
A large multinational corporation should be allowed to sue for defamation, and need not prove the allegations were false
The damages were disproportionate, considering the defendants' income and that McDonald's did not have to prove any financial loss
In short, the lack of legal aid made the trial unfair; the unfair trial and the excessive damages had denied the defendants' freedom of expression. The court did uphold most features of English libel law it considered, particularly the burden of proof.
Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt[edit]
Main article: Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt
On 5 September 1996, Holocaust denier David Irving filed a libel suit concerning Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. He named in his suit Lipstadt and Penguin Books, whose division Plume had published a British edition of her book.[23][24] He claimed that "his reputation as an historian was defamed".[25] Irving lost the case. He was liable to pay all of Penguin's costs of the trial, estimated to be as much as £2 million (US$3.2 million).[26][27] He was forced into bankruptcy in 2002[28] and lost his home.[29] Lipstadt spent five years defending herself. She described her story in History on Trial, published by Ecco in 2005.[25]
Funding Evil case[edit]
Main article: Funding Evil
In 2003 Rachel Ehrenfeld published her book Funding Evil, which explained how terrorist groups receive funding. Khalid bin Mahfouz was accused of funding terrorist groups in the book. The book was not sold in British bookstores, but 23 copies were sold in Britain, which gave the United Kingdom jurisdiction. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel, to which Ehrenfeld responded by calling this libel tourism, and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the case. On a summary judgement in Mahfouz's favor, after Ehrenfeld refused to appear in court, she counter-sued in U.S. courts claiming a violation of the First Amendment. While the U.S. courts ruled in Mahfouz's favor, the U.S. Congress responded with the SPEECH act, which made such libel judgements unenforceable in the United States.
The Simon Singh case[edit]
Further information: Simon Singh § Chiropractic lawsuit
On 19 April 2008, British author and journalist Simon Singh wrote an article in The Guardian, which resulted in him being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).[30][31] The suit was dropped by the BCA on 15 April 2010.[32]
Some commentators have suggested this ruling could set a precedent to restrict freedom of speech to criticise alternative medicine.[33][34]
The Wall Street Journal Europe has cited the case as an example of how British libel law "chills free speech", commenting that:
The U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would make British libel judgments unenforceable in the U.S. ... Mr. Singh is unlikely to be the last victim of Britain's libel laws. Settling scientific and political disputes through lawsuits, though, runs counter the very principles that have made Western progress possible. "The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error", Bertolt Brecht wrote in The Life of Galileo. ... It is time British politicians restrain the law so that wisdom prevails in the land, and not errors.[35]
The charity Sense About Science has launched a campaign to draw attention to the case.[36] They have issued a statement entitled "The law has no place in scientific disputes",[37] with myriad signatories representing science, journalism, publishing, arts, humanities, entertainment, skeptics, campaign groups, and law. As of 31 March 2011, over 56,000 have signed.[36] Many press sources have covered the issue.[38]
Cycling and doping[edit]
Main article: History of Lance Armstrong doping allegations
The cyclist Lance Armstrong employed English law firm Schillings to help him fight allegations of doping by using English libel law. Schilling's Gideon Benaim and Matthew Himsworth worked on his cases.[39][40] At one point, Schillings told "every UK paper and broadcaster" to not re-state allegations raised by the book L. A. Confidentiel.[41]
Armstrong sued London's Sunday Times for libel in 2004 after it referenced the book. They settled out of court for an undisclosed sum in 2006. After the USADA 2012 report on doping during Armstrong's racing era, the Sunday Times stated it might attempt to recover the money it lost and might sue Armstrong for fraud.[42]
Emma O'Reilly, a masseuse who worked with Armstrong's U.S. Postal cycling team, claimed that English libel law prevented her from speaking out about the doping she saw in cycling and the Tour de France.[43] David Walsh, co-author of L.A. Confidentiel, told the Press Gazette in 2012 that if not for English libel law, "Lance Armstrong might not have won the Tour De France seven times and the history of sport would be different and better".[41]
In 2013, Armstrong admitted the doping on television.[44]
Cases not in court[edit]
In addition to case law, there are numerous notable examples of authors and publishers refusing to print work out of fear of libel suits. Several novels have been cancelled or altered after threats of libel suits.[45]
UK Prime Ministor John Major sued several periodicals, including Simon Regan's Scallywag, and New Statesman, over stories about an alleged affair with Clare Latimer; Scallywag closed afterwards.[46] It was later revealed that Major had a real affair with MP Edwina Currie, and Latimer later claimed Downing Street had used her as a decoy to confuse the press.[47]
Child sexual abuse[edit]
After BBC television personality Jimmy Savile died it came to light that hundreds of people accused him of having abused them when they were children. The Sunday Mirror neglected to publish a story in 1994 regarding two of his alleged victims because its lawyers were worried about the costs of a libel trial.[48][49] A British newspaper editor, Brian Hitchen, claimed he heard from a ship captain about Savile's abuse decades beforehand, but noted that libel laws had prevented people from speaking up about Savile's abuse.[50]
Privacy[edit]
Main article: Privacy in English law
Since the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the law of defamation has been subject to pressure for reform from two particular provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights: Article 10 ECHR guarantees freedom of expression, while Article 8 ECHR guarantees a right to respect for privacy and family life. The question is, therefore, whether the law of defamation strikes the appropriate balance between allowing, for instance, newspapers sufficient freedom to engage in journalistic activity and, on the other hand, the right of private citizens not to suffer unwarranted intrusion.
An independent tort protecting privacy has been rejected in a number of cases including Kaye v Robertson in the Court of Appeal and again in the House of Lords in Wainwright v Home Office.
Proposals to amend the law[edit]
The Porter Committee[edit]
In 1948, this Committee produced the Report of the Committee on the Law of Defamation (Cmd 7536). This was partly implemented by the Defamation Act 1952.
The Faulks Committee[edit]
This committee produced the following reports:
Interim Report of the Committee on Defamation (Cmnd 5571). 1974.
Report of the Committee on Defamation (Cmnd 5909). 1975.
See also "Defamation Defamed" (1971) 115 Sol Jo 357.
The Libel Reform Campaign[edit]
On 10 November 2009, English PEN and Index on Censorship launched their report into English libel law entitled "Free Speech Is Not For Sale".[51] The report was highly critical of English libel law and the "chilling" effect it has on free expression globally. The report made 10 recommendations on how English libel law could be improved; including reversing the burden of proof, capping damages at £10,000, introducing a single publication rule, and establishing libel tribunals (to reduce costs). The campaign quickly grew with support from over 60,000 people and 100 affiliated organisations. The broadness of the campaign's support contributed to its success with celebrity support,[52] alongside support from GPs, scientists, academics and NGOs.
In January 2011, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that he was committed to introducing legislation that would turn "English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint".[53]
On 15 March 2011, a Draft Defamation Bill (CP3/11) was published by the Ministry of Justice with an accompanying "consultation paper containing provisions for reforming the law to strike the right balance between protection of freedom of speech and protection of reputation". (Close date: 15 June 2011)[54]
On 6 March 2013, a number of British authors and playwrights wrote an open letter to the leaders of the three biggest parties in the House of Commons, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, calling them to ensure the Defamation Bill was passed. The letter, organised English PEN, grew out of a concern that the bill has become threatened by political disputes over the results of the Leveson Inquiry. The bill did not cover press regulation until February 2013, when Lord Puttnam won support to include a section covering newspapers.[55]
The Defamation Act 2013 came into effect on 1 January 2014.[56]
Legal aid[edit]
In 1979 the Royal Commission on Legal Services recommended that legal aid should be made available for proceedings in defamation. The same recommendation had previously been made in the twenty-fifth annual report of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.[57]
See also[edit]
Censorship in the United Kingdom
Veronica Guerin
Libel tourism
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, rejection of the U.S. rule by Canada
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, an actual malice standard in the United States in accordance with the First Amendment
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c Vick, Douglas W.; Macpherson, Linda (1 April 1997). "An Opportunity Lost: The United Kingdom's Failed Reform of Defamation Law". Federal Communications Law Journal. 49 (3). Retrieved 12 August 2015.
^ Jump up to: a b Sir John William Salmond (1907). The Law of Torts: A Treatise on the English Law of Liability for Civil Injuries. Stevens and Haynes. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Sam Howard (15 March 2007). "Defamation of corporate entities in England". Lexology. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Greenslade, Roy (11 August 2010). "Obama seals off U.S. journalists and authors from Britain's libel laws". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 August 2010.
Jump up ^ richard@contentetc (6 May 2013). "Libel: out with the old and in with the new in Defamation Act 2013".
Jump up ^ "Press release: Defamation laws take effect". Ministry of Justice. 31 December 2013. Retrieved 2 March 2014.
Jump up ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/18/scientology-tv-exposure-halted-uk-libel-law-split-going-clear
Jump up ^ Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi, Owen Gibson, 23 March 2006, The Guardian
Jump up ^ Report of the Faulks Committee on Defamation (Cmnd 5909) (1975) paragraph 91
Jump up ^ The Defamation Act 1952, section 5
Jump up ^ The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, sections 8(1) and (3) and (5)
Jump up ^ "Defamation – libel and slander". The Liberty Guide to Human Rights. Liberty. 21 October 2002. Archived from the original on 23 November 2005. Retrieved 13 June 2007.
Jump up ^ "Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45". Bailii.org. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Gibb, Frances (11 October 2006). "Landmark ruling heralds U.S.-style libel laws in Britain". The Times. London: Times Newspapers. Retrieved 11 October 2006.
Jump up ^ Report of the Faulks Committee on Defamation (Cmnd 5909) (1975) paragraph 373.
Jump up ^ "4.88-90". Damages for Personal Injury:Non-pecuniary loss (Consultation Paper No 140 (PDF). Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 1995. p. 130. ISBN 0 11 730225 2. Retrieved 2016-10-10.
Jump up ^ Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 442
Jump up ^ Sarah Lyall (25 April 2013). "Libel Cases Now Harder to Bring in England". The New York Times. Retrieved 26 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Defamation Act 2013
Jump up ^ Yeo MP v. Times Newspapers Limited [2014] EWHC 2853, High Court (England and Wales)
Jump up ^ . Retrieved 15 March 2013.
Jump up ^ "Fourth Section: Case of Steel and Morris v The United Kingdom". European Court of Human Rights Portal. 15 February 2005. Archived from the original on 26 September 2006. Retrieved 20 October 2006.
Jump up ^ The book was first published in America in 1993 (ISBN 9780029192351) by Free Press, a division of Simon and Schuster. It was republished in the United Kingdom in 1994 (ISBN 9780452272743) by Plume, a division of Penguin, which Irving sued.
Jump up ^ Pelt (2002), page 63
^ Jump up to: a b Holocaust Denial On Trial, Emory University, retr 2012 10 16
Jump up ^ Walker, Andrew (20 February 2006). "Profile: David Irving". BBC News. Retrieved 2 September 2011.
Jump up ^ "Irving defiant over libel defeat". BBC News. 12 April 2000. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
Jump up ^ Dodd, Vikram; D. D. Guttenplan (5 March 2002). "Holocaust denier made bankrupt". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
Jump up ^ Vikram Dodd (22 May 2002). "Failed libel action costs Irving his home". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 2 September 2011.
Jump up ^ Singh, Simon (19 April 2008). "Beware the spinal trap". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 13 November 2008. Retrieved 21 January 2009.
Jump up ^ Comment is Free, The Guardian
Jump up ^ Verkaik, R (16 April 2010). "Science writer wins landmark libel case". The Independent. Retrieved 27 April 2010.
Jump up ^ "Chiropractic critic loses first round in libel fight". New Scientist. 15 May 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2009.
Jump up ^ Green, David Allen (13 May 2009). "Comment: Don't criticise, or we'll sue". New Scientist. Retrieved 19 May 2009.
Jump up ^ Salil Tripathi. Britain Chills Free Speech. The Wall Street Journal Europe, 4 June 2009
^ Jump up to: a b Sign up now to keep the libel laws out of science! Sense about Science
Jump up ^ "The law has no place in scientific disputes", Sense about Science
Jump up ^ Press Coverage
The Independent: Silenced, the writer who dared to say chiropractice is bogus* The Times: Review of libel law called for by comedians
The Guardian online: Science writer Simon Singh to appeal against chiropractic libel judgement
Nature news: Science writer will appeal libel case ruling
Times Higher Education: Singh plans to appeal ruling in libel case
Wall Street Journal: Britain Chills Free Speech
The Daily Telegraph online: Stephen Fry and Ricky Gervais defend science writer sued for libel
The Daily Mail online: Celebrities back writer sued by chiropractors for saying unproven treatment is 'bogus'
Jump up ^ Libel star Benaim quits Schillings, 8 June 2012, Sam Chadderton, retr 2012 10 20
Jump up ^ Armstrong v Sunday Times in November 1 August 2005, bikeradar.com, retrieved 20 October 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b Andrew Pugh, "David Walsh: 'It was obvious to me Lance Armstrong was doping'", Press Gazette, 11 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "UK newspaper may sue Armstrong over doping libel case", By the CNN Wire Staff, 13 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "Peddlers – Cycling's Dirty Truth", 54:00, Mark Chapman, including interviews with Tyler Hamilton, Bassons, and others. BBC Radio 5 live, 15 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "Armstrong admits doping in "toxic" tale". Reuters. January 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ Amanda Craig, "Libel laws: I could still be sued and lose everything", The Telegraph (UK), 27 June 2012.
Jump up ^ "New Statesman to sue Major over libel case", Telegraph (UK), 4 October 2002.
Jump up ^ Daniel Foggo and Tim Walker, "'I was a decoy for Major's affair' says former Downing Street cook", 29 September 2002.
Jump up ^ How my father may have helped Jimmy Savile escape justice, Dominic Carman, Guardian (UK), The Observer, Saturday 13 October 2012, retr 2012 10 27
Jump up ^ Britain's Jimmy Savile abuse scandal: How could allegations have gone unnoticed for so long? Associated Press, 27 October 2012
Jump up ^ Brian Hitchen, "The Disgusted Captain Who Threw Jimmy Savile Off a Cruise Ship", Express (UK), 4 October 2012.
Jump up ^ ".". Libelreform.org. 13 September 2012. Retrieved 15 March 2013.
Jump up ^ "The Heroes of the Libel Reform Campaign". Libelreform.org. 3 January 2014. Retrieved 29 January 2014.
Jump up ^ Wintour, Patrick (6 January 2011). "'Laughing stock' libel laws to be reformed, says Nick Clegg". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 January 2011.
Jump up ^ Draft Defamation Bill: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/draft_defamation_bill (formerly published at http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/365.htm)
Jump up ^ O'Carroll, Lisa (6 March 2013). "Authors call on party leaders to save libel reform". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 March 2013.
Jump up ^ "Press release: Defamation laws take effect". Ministry of Justice. 31 December 2013. Retrieved 14 May 2017.
Jump up ^ The Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services. Cmnd 7648. October 1979. Volume I. Paragraph 13.70 at page 151 of the first book.
Paul Mitchell, The Making of Modern Defamation Law (2000)
Basil Markesinis, 'Our Patchy Law of Privacy – Time to do Something about it' (1990) 53 Modern Law Review 802
Lord Bingham, ‘Tort and Human Rights’ (1998) Essays in Celebration of John Fleming, pp. 1–12, esp. pp. 9–12
Raphael, Adam (1989). My Learned Friends: an Insider's View of the Jeffrey Archer Case and Other Notorious Actions. ISBN 978-1-85227-094-0.
External links[edit]
The Libel Reform Campaign
Internet Defamation Removal
[hide]
v
t
e
English law
Core subjects
UK Constitution
Administrative law
Criminal law
Contract
Tort
Property
Trusts
European Union law
Further subjects
Company law
Competition law
Labour law
Commercial law
Procedure
Family law
Courts of England and Wales
Related systems
Law of the United Kingdom
Northern Ireland law
Scots law
Welsh law
Australian law
British Virgin Islands law
Canadian law
Hong Kong law
Indian law
New Zealand law
Singaporean law
United States law
Anglo-Saxon law
Common law
Equity
English case law
Category
Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_defamation_law&oldid=801696566"
Categories:
English defamation law
Hidden categories:
Use British English from May 2013
Use dmy dates from March 2013
Articles needing additional references from August 2011
All articles needing additional references
Articles with obsolete information from April 2013
All Wikipedia articles in need of updating
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from December 2007
Articles with unsourced statements from August 2011
Articles with unsourced statements from February 2015
Articles to be expanded from June 2009
All articles to be expanded
Articles using small message boxes
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 21 September 2017, at 08:04.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: mw-collapsible-toggle button 0

value: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Update

value:
mw-collapsible
width:95%; margin: 0.2em 0;

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-multiple_issues compact-ambox

value: Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

value:
/wiki/Nervous_shock_(English_Law)
mw-redirect
Nervous shock (English Law)

value: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

value: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (December 2007)

value:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

value:
/wiki/James_I_of_England
mw-redirect
James I of England

value:
/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
mw-redirect
Legal burden of proof

value: Continuing defamation (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/Causes_of_action
mw-redirect
Causes of action

value: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (August 2011)

value:
/wiki/Special_damages
mw-redirect
Special damages

value: Edit section: Publication in a permanent form

value: Edit section: Burden of proof on the defendant

value: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (February 2015)

value: Edit section: Where the words contain more than one charge

value:
/wiki/Spent_conviction
mw-redirect
Spent conviction

value: plainlinks metadata ambox mbox-small-left ambox-content

value:
/wiki/Evening_Standard
mw-redirect
Evening Standard

value: Parliamentary privilege in the United Kingdom

value: Qualified privilege in English law (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/Lord_Denning
mw-redirect
Lord Denning

value:
/wiki/Lord_Nicholls
mw-redirect
Lord Nicholls

value: Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (page does not exist)

value: Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960

value: Broadcasting Act 1996 (page does not exist)

value: Edit section: Apology and payment into court for newspaper libel

value: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (page does not exist)

value:
/wiki/Law_Commission
mw-redirect
Law Commission

value:
/wiki/Aldington_v_Tolstoy
mw-redirect
Aldington v Tolstoy

value:
/wiki/Betrayal_of_the_Cossacks
mw-redirect
Betrayal of the Cossacks

value: Edit section: Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt

value:
/wiki/Plume_(publishing)
mw-redirect
Plume (publishing)

value:
/wiki/Summary_judgement
mw-redirect
Summary judgement

value: First Amendment to the United States constitution

value:
/wiki/U.S._Congress
mw-redirect
U.S. Congress

value:
/wiki/The_Life_of_Galileo
mw-redirect
The Life of Galileo

value:
/wiki/Sense_About_Science
mw-redirect
Sense About Science

value: History of Lance Armstrong doping allegations

value:
/wiki/L._A._Confidentiel
mw-redirect
L. A. Confidentiel

value:
/wiki/Article_10_ECHR
mw-redirect
Article 10 ECHR

value:
/wiki/Freedom_of_expression
mw-redirect
Freedom of expression

value:
/wiki/Article_8_ECHR
mw-redirect
Article 8 ECHR

value: Judicial functions of the House of Lords

value: Edit section: Proposals to amend the law

value: Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

value:
/wiki/Ministry_of_Justice
mw-redirect
Ministry of Justice

value:
/wiki/Lord_Puttnam
mw-redirect
Lord Puttnam

value: Royal Commission on Legal Services (page does not exist)

value: Legal Aid Advisory Committee (page does not exist)

value: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto

value:
/wiki/Liberty_(pressure_group)
mw-redirect
Liberty (pressure group)

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial

value:
/wiki/Wall_Street_Journal
mw-redirect
Wall Street Journal

value:
/wiki/The_Daily_Mail
mw-redirect
The Daily Mail

value:
nofollow
external text
http://www.libelreform.org

value: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

value:
/wiki/Lord_Bingham
mw-redirect
Lord Bingham

value:
nofollow
http://www.libelreform.org/
external text

value:
nofollow
https://www.defamed.com/removeit/
external text

value:
/wiki/English_administrative_law
mw-redirect
English administrative law

value:
/wiki/English_trusts_law
mw-redirect
English trusts law

value:
navbox-image
3
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

value:
/wiki/British_labour_law
mw-redirect
British labour law

value: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

value: Category:Use British English from May 2013

value: Category:Articles needing additional references from August 2011

value: Category:All articles needing additional references

value: Category:Articles with obsolete information from April 2013

value: Category:All Wikipedia articles in need of updating

value: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2007

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from August 2011

value: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from February 2015

value: Category:Articles to be expanded from June 2009

value: Category:Articles using small message boxes

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value:
/wiki/English_defamation_law
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-English_defamation_law rootpage-English_defamation_law vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view