The Lunacy of the Libel Laws

BillieTheBot

Nice to see that finally some of the broadsheets have picked up on something which Private Eye has been covering for some months now:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6879284.ece

Anyone who truly believes we have freedom of speech in this country and that libel / defamation laws are there to serve the majority should read this. It's quite the eye-opener.

Former Member

Funnily enough I was just reading an article by Charlie Brooker on the same issue, though about a different case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/charlie-brooker-super-injunctions

Former Member

Thunderstruck wrote: »

Nice to see that finally some of the broadsheets have picked up on something which Private Eye has been covering for some months now:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article6879284.ece

Anyone who truly believes we have freedom of speech in this country and that libel / defamation laws are there to serve the majority should read this. It's quite the eye-opener.

Interesting, but as someone comments that the libel laws put the burden of proof on the defendent - I was under the impression that in order to bring a libel lawsuit you had to prove a) you had lost out financially b) that the claims made that caused your financial loss were absolutely untrue. How do you prove that a blog has definitely caused you financial loss that deserves compensation?

Although there are many underlying issues here that are more to do with the whole legal system - the fact that legal costs are such a barrier which means rich people are able to defend themselves / start cases against others.

Former Member

The Guardian's reporting on the Trafigura/Minton Report injunction was incredibly biased and misleading. As I wrote a few days ago...

stargalaxy wrote: »

The Grauniad, already a place where dodgy journalism is king, has been particuarly shameless this week. First of all, it claimed that Carter Ruck and Trafigura were trying to block them from reporting on parliamentary proceedings. This isn't true, as it happens. The injunction on the Minton Report was in place since September 11th this year and the Grauniad's own lawyers accepted the need for such an injunction on September 18th. Not that you would know that from their extremely skewed, trumpet-blowing coverage on the issue. It just so happened that reporting on the question could have put The Grauniad at risk of breaking an injunction they themselves agreed was necessary.

I think there are far better examples we can use in this debate. Ever heard of Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov? Read his Wikipedia entry and you get a portrait in your head of a man with many business interests whom has led quite an interesting life, to put it mildly. Back in September 2007, he purchased a stake in Arsenal FC. Craig Murray - previously the British ambassador to Uzbekistan - used this as an opportunity to remind his blog readers of this man's past. It contained allegations of criminal activity in his past. Schillings - Usmanov's lawyers of choice - contacted his webhost and demanded this entry was taken down and forced his entire blog offline for several days. Murray said he would happily defend himself in court, but Schillings refused him the opportunity to do this, preferring instead to threaten hosting companies who had no interest in defending the case in order to shut down the story. In other words, Schillings wanted to silence this man, but would not let him have his day in court. Extremely sinister.

There is also the case of Andrew Marr, a prominent journalist at the Beeb. He has obtained an injunction in order to prevent us from discovering "private information" about him. At first, it was even illegal to reveal the existence of the injunction, until Private Eye commented on the situation. Because I don't wish to get TheSite into any kind of legal trouble, I'm not going to reveal what the information is. But I find it extremely disturbing that a journalist like Marr - and I was under the impression that journalists were there to give us information the authorities don't want us to know - would use the law to prevent us from finding out more about him.

Update to my original post: You know that something is seriously wrong with our libel laws when I agree with Richard Dawkins on the matter. The matter is so bad that the United Nations believes our libel laws are stifling our freedom of speech. Several states in the USA are now actually amending their laws so that the decisions reached in UK libel cases cannot be applied in their own states. I wish I was making this up, I honestly do...

Former Member

I was going to mention the case SG linked to, that Richard Dawkin's wrote about, and Brian Cox spoke about. It was a case where a scientist published an article saying that British chiropractors were practicing bogus techniques. He was then sued for libel, and the issue isn't whether chiropracty is bogus or not (which of course it is when people are claiming they can cure things like asthma with it ffs), it's that using the term "bogus" suggests that these people are knowingly defrauding people.

Can anyone tell me what the original article is about? I seem to be having trouble accessing any Times article atm. Not sure why.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the original article is about? I seem to be having trouble accessing any Times article atm. Not sure why.

The article on the original link was from a Sunday Times piece written by Simon Singh himself. It talks about people whom are being sued under libel laws and the sheer cost of these cases. Taking a libel case to court can sometimes incur a bill of over £1million, and since legal aid isn't available in libel cases, that means if you lose, you're liable for the entire sum.

He also discusses the recent phenomenon of people being sued directly for something they've written for newspapers. In the past, if something libellious was published in a newspaper, you would sue the newspaper itself. Nowadays, there's an increasing trend to sue the person who wrote the original piece. (this next example is not in the piece, it's just the first one I thought of) Just ask Quentin Letts from the Daily Mail - Alan Sugar tried to sue him on the grounds Letts thinks Sugar is a bit dim. I shit you not.

Former Member

Yeah, I was under the impression that the media source was responsible, not the person making the statement. I remember a while back when the Muslim Council of Britain sued (or threatened to sue) the BBC for something that someone said on Question Time.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Yeah, I was under the impression that the media source was responsible, not the person making the statement.

They are. I'm of the understanding, however, that they will often go after the person directly if they've got a much weaker case against them.