Abstract
As Robert Sack famously put it: successful libel plaintiffs resemble the remnants of an army platoon caught in an enemy crossfire. Defamation, or libel in particular, has always been hard to prove. But, if proved, the predicament that arises, particularly in matters of public interest is if what is gained by disclosure of the statement is important, or even more fundamentally, necessary for the functioning of a state, the statement or comment is justified, or is to be allowed. This is a doubt that has lingered around for a long time, with the judiciary taking various stands through the years. But, in the year 1964, the Supreme Court of the United States of America took a bold step in protecting the freedom of speech of its country, and ensuring free flow of dialogue. Ever since, similar steps have been taken by various other countries, with some succeeding, and some failing miserably. This paper tries to look at the judgment in itself, and what entailed in various parts of the world, in detail, with a comparison with Indian and English law.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
