Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:11:22.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Book Reviews, The Common Law Tort of Defamation, and the Suppression of Scholarly Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Kate Sutherland

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Professor Joseph Weiler will soon stand trial for criminal libel in France for refusing to remove a book review from a website associated with an academic journal for which he serves as editor. His case has disturbing implications for all those who write, edit, and publish critical scholarly work. In this article, I explore those implications for Canadian scholars at home and as members of a global scholarly community. I assess the likelihood of success of a similar complaint under Canadian defamation law, and I consider the impact of libel chill and libel tourism. I conclude that although the defendant in such a case would have a good chance of prevailing under Canadian law through the defense of fair comment, a threat to academic freedom remains that requires action on the part of individuals and institutions committed to its preservation and enhancement.

Type
Mini-Symposium: Critical Book Reviews & Academic Freedom
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , 01 June 2010 , pp. 656 - 670
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Joseph H.H. Weiler, Editorial: Book Reviewing and Academic Freedom, 20 European Journal of International Law 967, 974 (2009).Google Scholar

2 Canada's Criminal Code does contain an offence of defamatory libel” (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, chapter C-46, section 298) which the Supreme Court of Canada upheld as constitutional in the case of R. v. Lucas [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439. But it is rarely invoked, and it is difficult to imagine prosecution under it of a critical book review such as the one at issue in Professor Weiler's case.Google Scholar

3 Grant v. Torstar Corp. [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640, para. 28 [hereinafter Grant].Google Scholar

4 Raymond E. Brown, Defamation law: A Primer 35–38 (2003).Google Scholar

5 Dilworth v. Dudley, 75 F.3d 307, 310 (7th cir. 1996) [hereinafter Dilworth].Google Scholar

6 WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420, paras. 68–69 [hereinafter WIC Radio].Google Scholar

7 Id., para. 69.Google Scholar

8 Id., paras. 70 & 72.Google Scholar

9 Id., para. 56.Google Scholar

10 Id., paras. 26 & 25.Google Scholar

11 Id., para. 28.Google Scholar

12 Grant, (note 3), para. 105.Google Scholar

13 Id. Google Scholar

14 Gardiner v. John Fairfax & Sons Bty Ltd, [1942] State Reports (N.S.W.) 171, 173, cited in Saras Pyrohy Hut v. Brooker, (1991) 83 Alta. L.R. (2d) 131 (Alta. Q.B.) [hereinafter Sara's Pyrohy Hut].Google Scholar

15 WIC Radio, supra, note 6, para. 31.Google Scholar

16 Thornton v. Telegraph Media Group Ltd. [2009] EWHC 2863 (Q.B.), para. 19 [hereinafter Thornton].Google Scholar

17 Mr. Chow of New York v. Ste. Jour Azur S.A. 759 F.2d 219 (2nd cir. 1985), cited in Saras Pyrohy Hut, (note 14). See also David C. Vogel, You Have the Right to Criticize this Casenote: Protecting Negative Reviews within the Law of Defamation and the First Amendment, 60 Missouri Law Review 445 (1995). Also, more generally, see Richard D. Sluder and Victor E. Kappeler, Scholarly Criticism and Defamation: Are There New Limits for Book Reviewers? 6 Journal of Criminal Justice Education 193 (1995).Google Scholar

18 Associated Newspapers Limited v. Keith Burstein [2007] 4 All. E.R. 319 (C.A.), para. 23 [hereinafter Burstein].Google Scholar

19 WIC Radio (note 6), para. 26.Google Scholar

20 Moldea v. New York Times Co. 22 F. 3d 310 (D.C. cir. 1994) [hereinafter Moldea]. For a thorough discussion of the case and the circumstances leading up to it, see Vogel (note 17).Google Scholar

21 Moldea (note 20), 311.Google Scholar

22 Id., 313.Google Scholar

23 But see Amy Gadja, The Trials OF Academe: The New Era Of Campus Litigation 172 (2009) who cautions that even in the U.S., “the breathing space created by the exemption for opinion is less sweeping that might be imagined.”Google Scholar

24 Thornton (note 16), para. 48.Google Scholar

25 Cherneskey v. Armadale Publishers Ltd. [1979] 1 S.C.R. 1067.Google Scholar

26 WIC Radio (note 6), para. 28. 27 Grant (note 3), para. 31.Google Scholar

28 WIC Radio (note 6), para. 28.Google Scholar

29 Tse Wai Chun Paul v. Cheng [2001] E.M.L.R. 777, cited with approval in Burstein (note 18), para. 26.Google Scholar

30 Grant (note 3), para. 28.Google Scholar

31 See Chief Justice McLachlin's remarks on the limited utility of the defence of justification in relation to journalism in Grant (note 3), para. 33. I believe the situation of the defendant book reviewer to be analogous to or perhaps even more difficult than that of the journalist.Google Scholar

32 Id. Google Scholar

33 Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd., [1999] 4 All E.R. 609 [H.L.].Google Scholar

34 Grant (note 3), para. 62.Google Scholar

35 Id., para. 38.Google Scholar

36 Id., para. 96, citing Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL, [2006] UKHL 44 [H.L.], para. 54.Google Scholar

37 Grant (note 3), para. 98.Google Scholar

38 Id., para. 122.Google Scholar

39 Id., para. 126.Google Scholar

40 Id., para. 97.Google Scholar

41 Underwager v. Salter, 22 F. 3d 730 (7th cir. 1994).Google Scholar

42 Id., 735.Google Scholar

43 Id. Google Scholar

44 Grant (note 3), para. 57.Google Scholar

45 WIC Radio (note 6), para. 15.Google Scholar

46 Barrick Gold moves to block mining book, CBC Arts (12 May 2010), available at http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2010/05/12/barrick-gold-mining-book.html Google Scholar

47 Peter Schmidt, Professors Are Pitched Lawsuit Protection, 56 The Chronicle of Higher Education (2009).Google Scholar

48 Jennifer Howard, Scholarly Association Settles ‘Libel Tourism’ Case, Campus Watch (18 June 2008), available online at: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/5266 Google Scholar

49 Id. Google Scholar

50 Gary R. Johnson, Editorial: Science, Sulloway, and Birth Order: An Ordeal and an Assessment, 19 Politics and the Life Sciences 211, 213 (2000).Google Scholar

51 Id., 213–214.Google Scholar

52 Id., 217.Google Scholar

53 Id., 241.Google Scholar

54 Sam Bayard, Critical book review brings French criminal libel charge, First Amendment Coalition (15 March 2010), available online at: http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/03/critical-book-review-brings-french-criminal-libel-charge Google Scholar

55 Gilles Cuniberti, Book Reviews, Criminal Libel, and the Jurisdiction of French Courts, ConflictofLaw.net, (18 February 2010), available online at: http://conflictoflaws.net/2010/book-reviews-criminal-libel-and-the-jurisdiction-of-french-courts.Google Scholar

56 Bayard (note 54).Google Scholar

57 Note that Cuniberti suggests that this may not be a sufficient connection under French law (note 55).Google Scholar

58 Peter Wood, Libel Tourism En Vacances, National Association of Scholars, (7 May 2010), available online at: http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doc_id=1211 Google Scholar

59 Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Michael Gillard, Libel tourists flock to ‘easy’ UK courts, TimesOnline (1 November 2009). Available online at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6898172.ece Google Scholar

60 Rachel Ehrenfeld, U.K. Libel Laws Chill Another American Book, Forbes.com (8 June 2009), available online at: http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/08/libel-tourism-protection-act-opinions-contributors-free-speech.html.Google Scholar

61 Dilworth (note 5), 310. See also Lott v. Levitt 556 F. 3d 564, 570 (7th cir. 2009): To the extent that Lott is complaining about an attack on his ideas and not on his character, he is barking up the wrong tree. The remedy for this kind of academic dispute is the publication of a rebuttal, not an award of damages.”Google Scholar

62 Underwager (note 41), 736.Google Scholar

63 GAJDA (note 23), 179.Google Scholar

64 Johnson (note 50), 241.Google Scholar