U.K. Libel Suit Hits U.S. Web Site

Ridge2001 writes: "CBS Marketwatch is running a story describing how a Canadian mining company has used British libel law to have material removed from a U.S. web site. Greg Palast, an American journalist who writes for Guardian Unlimited's Observer newspaper in the U.K., wrote an article which was defamatory, under British law, to Canadian mining company Barrick Gold. The Observer has deleted the article from its archives; Palast still has a copy at his U.S. web site but has been forced to snip the portions which were found defamatory. An uncensored version is still available here." Whatever you think of the content of the story, remember that this sort of chilling effect could make sites in any country afraid to report controversial news.

Comments

Big Surprise.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't doubt that there is some ring of truth in his story but, the legal action against him can't be a surprise. The article is full of highly inflamatory accusations and inuendo. The article lacks proof though, there in lies the problem.

You can't accuse corporations run by powerful and *well* connected individuals of murder without proof. Without proof, it *is* slanderous and liable. The story may have been accurate but, without the proof, he may as well have been ranting on slashdot.

Re:Big Surprise.

[Ridge2001]

The article lacks proof though, there in lies the problem.

The problem is not a lack of "proof". The problem is that the British legal system favors plaintiffs in libel suits. Under the American system, the onus is not on the defendant to prove that a statement is true; the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the statement is false. Since the government is refusing to investigate the incident in Tanzania, it would be very difficult for Barrick to prove libel.

Even if Palast and the Observer had "proof", truth is not an absolute defence under British law. This is why holocaust deniers are able to sue for libel when people call them "holocaust deniers". (The holocaust-denying plaintiff lost the lawsuit, but only because the judge ruled his "reputation had not been damaged"; not because of the truth of the defendant's statements.)

You can't accuse corporations run by powerful and *well* connected individuals of murder without proof.

During the Clinton presidency, did people refrain from accusing Clinton of complicity in the death of Vincent Foster, for fear of libel lawsuits? No, because in the US, courts tend to heavily favor the defendant in libel suits, and hence these suits are rarely successful. This is why a plaintiff will attempt to move a libel lawsuit to another country on the slightest pretext.

You are half right.

[www.sorehands.com]

Why do you have to have the proof in the article? Though it lends credibility to the article, it is not required to be there.

If the statements are true, then it is not libel under US law. And there is the problem. Under UK law, the standard for libel is different than US law, and different under the laws of each country. In the US, you have to prove statements are not true, and even if they are not, that it was not published with malice, recklessness, or negligence. I have the standards in my summary judgment motion brief.

This is a Canadian company filing a complaint in a UK court, which raises the spector of why? Because it is harder to defend. Not only on the libel standard, but the other party would be harmed by going to defend it.

This story has been on Salon, too...

[Raetsel]

The bastion of liberalism has the story as well, titled "Exporting Corporate Control ", and not only is it about censorship, they manage to bash President Bush, too! (Gee, that was hard, Mr. "I'm going to take a month-long vacation"...) Take the subtitle, for example:

• "A gold company with ties to the Bush family tries to muzzle a muckraking journalist."

Ah, a story about mass murder, gold, the-president-who-sorta-isn't, family, campaign finance, etc... Wonder what else they could have fit in there? Exactly how many degrees of seperation apply? Gawd, they just love being inflamatory... it does get them readers, I suppose. (I'm one, obviously.)

Anyway, political leanings aside, they do a good job of following the money. They also point out that Gregory Palast has written for Salon before, so they have a vested interest in his popularity...

What a wicked web, indeed.

not quite

[regexp]

I agree that this is scary, but to say simply that UK libel laws are being applied to a US Web site exaggerates the case.

The Guardian is a UK paper, and it was sued under UK law. Palast was working on their dime. The story doesn't provide much detail on how the company forced Palast to remove the work from his personal U.S. site, but it suggests that he removed it to protect the Guardian from further legal trouble in UK courts.

So this case, while disturbing, isn't quite what Slashdot frames it to be. There are no British bobbies knocking on Palast's door in the U.S., no FBI agents running around enforcing British law.