Comparative Analysis of the Approaches to Ensuring Unreasonable Limits are Not Imposed on the Right to Freedom of Expression by the Defamation Legislation of Jamaica, Australia and England & Wales Within the Context of the Internet: Assessment of the Efficacy of the Jamaican Defamation Act 2013.

In 2013, the Jamaican Parliament enacted the Defamation Act with the object to, inter alia, address the rules within its pre-existing defamation laws, that were identified, in substance and operation, as being problematic as they exerted a disproportionate chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression in favour of the protection of reputation. The thesis asserts that, based on an examination of theories on the importance of the right to freedom of expression and reputation, the underlying values of each and their equal normative value and status as fundamental human rights, there is no justification for unreasonable restrictions to be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, in favour of the protection of reputation. To assess the efficacy of the Jamaican Defamation Act 2013, this thesis engages in a comparative analysis of the Jamaica Defamation Act 2013 and the approaches undertaken in Australia and England and Wales in their respective defamation legislation to address same or similar problems. This thesis focuses on a few of the pre 2013 defamation rules that were identified as problematic, specifically, the presumption of harm, strict liability rule, lengthy limitation periods, and the lack of workable defences for defamatory publications to the world at large on topics of public importance and interest. Additionally, the thesis scrutinizes how the relevant approaches of the comparative jurisdictions would apply where the right to freedom of expression is exercised via the Internet platform.Based on the comparative analysis, it is concluded that the Jamaican Defamation Act 2013 did not go far enough to resolve the problems within the pre 2013 defamation law, and that the distinct features of Internet publications make it even more difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy the featured object of the Jamaican Defamation Act 2013.