Artemus Jones and the Press Club

Mitchell, Paul

doi:10.1080/01440362008539586

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2014

2021

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Book1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The legal arguments before the House of Lords proceeded on the basis of these facts, which was artificial: in the 1890s, before he became a barrister, Jones worked as a subeditor on none other than the Sunday Chronicle and was a Grub Street acquaintance of Charles Dawbarn, the writer of the Dieppe races sketch a decade later. 4 The House of Lords categorically rejected the newspaper's argument that unfamiliarity with the real Artemus Jones meant that the paper was not liable for defaming him. Lord Loreburn declared in the lead judgment:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authors and Artemus Jones: Libel Reform in England, 1910–52

Hilliard

2021

Literature & History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that the novel was collateral damage in English law’s reaction to mass-market newspapers. A 1910 court decision made the writer’s intention irrelevant in libel cases. As a result, publishers became vulnerable to defamation suits from people unknown to a novelist but who happened to share a name with a fictional character. Drawing on the Society of Authors archive and the records of the Porter Committee on the Law of Defamation, the article reconstructs the campaign to exempt fiction from liability in cases of unintentional defamation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%