Improvements to the Law as Introduced by the Defamation Act 2013 Essay

Improvements to the police as Introduced by the calumny comport 2013 - Essay ExampleIn get with this, the new trifle aims to protect not only the right of each person to express themselves verb wholey or in writing but also the need to protect the reputation of each person. To serve this purpose, Defamation Act 2013 was enacted on the 25th of April 20132. On top of setting grounds on freedom to express wizs own thoughts and ideas and the need to protect the reputation of other person or a transmission attract entity, the said Act also applies to the need to control libel tourism. As such, the Act extends legal tribute to website operators by entitling them for a defence in case the website operator is not the one who post own(prenominal) comments or statements that could seriously offend other people5. In line with this, the Act requires all individuals and business organizations to pack significant evidences that can prove their claim on defamation. Under section 5(3)(a) of Defamation Act 2013, it was all the way stated that website operators are given the equal opportunity to prove themselves that they are not the one who posted malign statements online. Thus, the Act guarantees protection to all website operators provided that they can identify the right person who posted harmful statements. Furthermore, any forms of moderation made by the website operators with regards to the hurtful comments made by other people in their website(s) can validate their defence. 7. Philosophical lens can be used to investigate how the society would ingest the concept of freedom of expression within the modern society and perhaps how the Defamation Act 2013 would convulsion or can be altered to fit in the concept of freedom of expression8. In line with this, reasons why Defamation Act 2013 has failed to provide any significant improvements to the existing law will be tacked in details. 2. Justification on Claims 2.1 Control on Libel Tourism In 1936, Lord Atkin define libel as a defamatory statement that can somehow cause injury to another persons reputation. Good examples of libel include publicly commenting on other people referable to hatred or purposely disrespecting or ridiculing another person which aims to destroy his own self-esteem9. In line with this, libel tourism occurs when the claimants for libel case is not residing in the same rude where the defendant is shortly residing (i.e. online libel cases, etc.)10. A good example of libel tourism is the case of Prince Alwaleed bin Talal v Forbes cartridge clip whereby a journalist was legally sued for underestimating the Princes fortune by $9.6 billion11. Defamation Act 2013 aims to prevent forum-shopping in such a way that claimants cannot just file a defamation case in capital of the coupled Kingdom if they have no links to UK. By setting a clear ground or guidelines on libel tourism, it is possible to limit or reduce the number of unimportant claims on defamation. With this i n mind, the order of Defamation Act 2013 could somehow contribute to the decrease in the number of legal charges on defamation12. The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union (EU)13. Despite the spays in UKs latest Defamation Act, question arises as to whether or not the Defamation Act 2013 can make significant change in the defamation law in UK. First of all, there is no change in EU Law or law affecting European nationals. Since UK is a member of the European Union, it means that all existing EU laws could somehow affect the defamation law in UK. For instance, the Rome I ordinance is a contractual obligation that administers the choice of law among the members of the European Union14. Since UK is a member of the European Union, this country is not legally exempted wherein the defendant can have the option for a choice of law. Likewise,