2016 Volume 21 Issue 4
Articles
Avenging revenge porn: Why we need more than just the criminal law
Elizabeth Bird
Abstract
This article explores the different means by which the phenomenon of ‘revenge porn’ might be regulated, and the rationales, benefits and disadvantages of each. It concludes that a Commonwealth criminal offence should be created, and victims should be given the option to pursue further relief, by way of an action under a statutory tort.
This article explores the different means by which the phenomenon of ‘revenge porn’ might be regulated, and the rationales, benefits and disadvantages of each. It concludes that a Commonwealth criminal offence should be created, and victims should be given the option to pursue further relief, by way of an action under a statutory tort.
Abstract
The past century has seen profound transformations in the world of media and communications. Yet, for the purposes of defamation law, our conception of publication remains grounded in a rule from the archaic 1849 case of Duke of Brunswick v Harmer. Problematically, the multiple publication rule, which provides that each communication of defamatory material gives rise to a fresh cause of action, has troubling implications for modern media. In an online setting, it means that every time a defamatory webpage is accessed, a cause of action can accrue against the publisher. Considering not only the enormous volume of online content, but the immediacy of its dissemination and its relative permanency on the web, publishers can find themselves exposed to liability which is temporally and geographically limitless. Through a comparative analysis of the approaches in the United States and the United Kingdom — being two jurisdictions where the multiple publication rule has been abandoned or substantially modified — this article advocates the enactment of a statutory single publication rule in Australia.
The past century has seen profound transformations in the world of media and communications. Yet, for the purposes of defamation law, our conception of publication remains grounded in a rule from the archaic 1849 case of Duke of Brunswick v Harmer. Problematically, the multiple publication rule, which provides that each communication of defamatory material gives rise to a fresh cause of action, has troubling implications for modern media. In an online setting, it means that every time a defamatory webpage is accessed, a cause of action can accrue against the publisher. Considering not only the enormous volume of online content, but the immediacy of its dissemination and its relative permanency on the web, publishers can find themselves exposed to liability which is temporally and geographically limitless. Through a comparative analysis of the approaches in the United States and the United Kingdom — being two jurisdictions where the multiple publication rule has been abandoned or substantially modified — this article advocates the enactment of a statutory single publication rule in Australia.