Synthesis of Political Speech
Cases in the Four Jurisdictions
To establish meaningful relationships in the high courts of the United States, the ECHR, the United Kingdom, and Australia, this study takes an analogical analysis of three purposefully selected cases from each regime as they reflect the current jurisprudence in each jurisdiction.1 Cases selected for the United States' jurisdiction are New York Times v Sullivan,2Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc.,3 and Dun & Bradstreet v Greenmoss.4 For the ECHR jurisprudence, Lingens v Austria,5Castells v Spain,6 and Bladet Tromso and Stensaas v Norway7 are analyzed. Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd.,8Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd.,9 and Reynolds v Times Newspapers10 are cases taken to represent the study of the United Kingdom jurisdiction. Finally, for the case studies of the Australian jurisdiction, Nationwide News Party Ltd. v Wills,11Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd.,12 and Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation13 are examined.
The legal analysis looks for critical facts, holdings, reasoning, and any rules articulated in the decisions of the various Courts to enable identifying any common denominator and comparing the regimes. After the case-law analysis of the jurisdiction, cases examined are further subjected to a qualitative content analysis as part of the technique of multiple methods used in the present study. Categories for the qualitative content analysis are “issue,” “identity,” “interest,” “rationale” and “doctrinal approach.” These categories are developed to help organize critical facts to reflect various authorities in the different jurisdictions. So, this chapter discusses similarities and differences in critical facts of the jurisdictions.