comparison of defamation privileges, 159–163

Canada, England less gracious to private person, 159

flexibility of Reynolds, 160

impact of conflicts of law rules, 301–303

predictability of Lange (2000) and New York Times, 159–160

constitutive free speech justifications

in Canada, 139

generallygenerally, 6, 6, 9–11, 107, 139

convergence of defamation laws

comparison, 55–56

factors to be considered, 50–52

convergence of freedom of expression rights

England and US generally, 16–17

Reynolds and Harte-Hanks, 52–56

costs

as element affecting comity, 51, 208, 208, 223–225

English practice, 51

United States, 51

Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts. See also public figures

access to media, 112

compared to reasonable journalism, 213–214

compared to Reynolds, 214

generally, 112–113, 210, 287

John Stuart Mill, 113

standard of proof, 113

defamation

celebrities as public figures, 112, 122, 122, 124–125, 130, 280

common law, 44–45, 190

conduct of publisher central, 102

defamation (continued)

critical role of falsity, 101

cultural values, 298

generally, 5

impact of First Amendment, 189–190

as a limit on free speech, 100

prohibited by government, 45

Defamation Act 2005 (Australia), 143–145, 148–150

democracy or self-government theory of free speech. See Alexander Meiklejohn

Derbyshire CC v. Times Newspapers, Ltd., 45

DeRoburt v. Gannett Co., Inc., 190–191

criticism of, 192

Desai v. Hersh, 191–194, 203

common law of India, 191

First Amendment interests, 192–193

US Speech Act, 256

disclosure. See privacy

distrust of government, 102, 108, 298

doctrinal law and free speech theory

difficulty, 102

Donlevy, Brian, 125, 159

Dworkin, Ronald

human dignity, 9

instrumental and constitutive justifications, 6

Edwards v. National Audubon Society, Inc., 57, 60

Egeland and Hanseid v. Norway, 291

Ehrenfeld, Rachel

and Bin Mahfouz, 2–5

de minimis contacts, 303