Fair Report Privilege Versus Foreign Government Statements: United States and English Judicial Interpretations Compared

Abstract

REPUTATIONAL harm is regarded as of earliest injuries recognised by almost every society.' As United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart stated, society's interest in protecting an individual's interest in his own good name reflects social value of the essential dignity and worth of every human being-a concept at root of any decent system of ordered liberty.2 At same time, law of defamation often conflicts with freedom of press in that the possibility of civil (or criminal) liability for published words is inconsistent with a totally free press is truism.3 In United States and England courts have long endeavoured to accommodate conflict between libel law and press freedom.4 Such judicial efforts, however, are far from satisfactory. As authors of a leading American media law book have noted, Few areas of law are more complex than libel or more dependent upon verbal nuance that varies from one jurisdiction to another.5 In a similar vein, an English judge has characterised his country's defamation law as artificial and archaic.6 These and other critical comments7 on tort of libel derive