Abstract
This article examines recent defamation cases, especially the Hanson and Abbott and Costello cases, as studies of how courts distil meanings from publications and judicial perceptions about how ordinary readers interpret publications. It explores the difficulty in defining the line between publications that are tasteless, tacky or hurtful and those that are defamatory, particularly those which deal at the fringes of sexual morality or subversive humour. Finally, it addresses the question of whether defamation law creates a parallel system of censorship.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.