Peter N. Amponsah

Amponsah argues that political defamation laws in the United States, Europe and Australia are converging. In each area political speech is privileged by reference to liberal ideals, the marketplace of ideas, self-fulfillment, and democratic principles.

Amponsah studies political defamation laws in the United States, the European Court of Human Rights, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Prevailing jurisprudence of each area weighs political speech against reputation through a preferred balancing approach which gives more protection to political speech. While the different jurisdictions place greater interest in political speech than individual reputation in matters of public concern and governance, all used multiple rationales such as the marketplace of ideas, self-fulfillment, search for truth, and democratic self-government principles to justify protection of political speech. Democratic jurisdictions give heightened protection for political speech by assimilating into their libel laws values embodied in multiple rationales for protecting political speech.

Table of Contents

Introduction
1. Political Speech and the Concept of Democracy
2. Philosophy of Freedom of Speech
3. Historical Analysis of the Four Jurisdictions
4. Synthesis of Political Speech Cases in the Four Jurisdictions
5. Conclusion: Convergence of Political Speech Protections

Notes
Bibliography
Index