reckless disregard of the truth (continued)

failure to investigate, 22–24, 42–43

Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 31–35

Masson v. New Yorker

Magazine, 41

Murphy v. Boston Herald, Inc, 40–41, 43–44

purposeful avoidance of truth, 34–35, 39–40

question for jury, 54

reasonableness standard, 39

Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc, 38–40

reform of defamation laws (UK), 262–266

compliance with Human Rights Act and European Convention, 263

growth in libel claims, 264

interest of the public in reform, 265

jurisdiction, 265

Lord Lester’s proposal, 262

simpler democracy, 263

United Nations Human Rights Committee, 272

vested defamation industry, 263–265

Rehnquist, Chief Justice William, 30–31

reportage, 56–73

analogy to hearsay evidence, 64–66

Charman v. Orion group Publishing group, Inc., 64

derived from fair report privilege, 61–62

reportage (continued)

Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc., 57

Elder, David, 68

European Court of Human Rights, 66–68

fair report, 68–73

Flood v. Times Newspapers, Ltd., 106, 107

Harte-Hanks, 58

limited role in US, 60

lost opportunity in Harte-Hanks, 58

newsworthiness, 72

not required by First Amendment, 58

rejected in Pennsylvania, 59

Roberts v. Gable, 62–64

same as neutral reportage, 56

Selisto v. Finland, 67

special application of Reynolds, 62–64

Thoma v. Luxembourg, 66–67

Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, 67–68

wire service defence, 60–61

reputation

balanced with free speech, 101–103, 105

Canada, 137

common law, 44

European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10, 158

First Amendment, 41

generallygenerally, x–xii, x–xii, 5–6

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, 119–121

private persons, 120

societal value, 101

valued in US and England, 161