If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The Lunacy of the Libel Laws
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
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.
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.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/charlie-brooker-super-injunctions
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.
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...
Can anyone tell me what the original article is about? I seem to be having trouble accessing any Times article atm. Not sure why.
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.