Libel Laws Used To Curb Web Protests

Rowdy Ray writes "Big businesses are using Britain's libel laws to shut down websites set up by disgruntled customers or protest groups, a report by the Government's advisers on law reform has found."

Comments

Not much new here

[mbstone]

US libel laws are similar to those in the UK. Big companies with unlimited resources for lawyers can sue (or threaten to sue) small web sites, with relative impunity, on both sides of the pond. The amount of money one has available for lawyers (and other litigation costs) is a thumb on the scales of American (and English) justice. The only difference is, in England they have the "English rule" which means that the loser pays the winner's legal fees. So anybody taking on a corporate behemoth in the UK court system takes a far greater risk! Many US jurisdictions have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws which can help tip the scales back toward the free (as in speech) speakers.

Re:Not much new here

[leviramsey]

US libel laws are similar to those in the UK

With your first statement, you demonstrate that you know nothing about this matter. I won't even bother reading the rest of your post after that bit of idiocy.

There is a substantial difference between American and British libel laws. If you are a public figure (and most big corps would be considered such under the law), under American law, and you sue for libel or slander, you must demonstrate that:

• the statements in question are untrue
• the publisher or speaker acted with malice
• there was damage arising from those statements

OTOH, the British laws require that the publisher or speaker demonstrate that they are not damaging or untrue. In essence British libel law considers the accused guilty until proven innocent.

Re:Not much new here

[mbstone]

I stand corrected, but a web site author who can't afford a lawyer is never going to get to see the inside of the courtroom to make legal arguments such as the status of the plaintiff corporation as a "public figure."

But still

[www.sorehands.com]

Only some states have SLAPP statutes. And these SLAPP statutes have varying force. In New York the SLAPP statute only deals with statements made to government agencies, otherwise the Pets Warehouse case would have been kicked immediately.

Even in states with anti-SLAPP statutes there is still a cost in defending it. The anti-SLAPP statutes provide costs of defense as damages against the SLAPPer, but that does not deter large SLAPPers from abusing the courts.

Slapp

[macdaddy357]

Most libel and defamation suits are just slapp suits. Business robber barons have used them to silence critics since the printing press, and libel laws were invented. Patently bogus claims of libel and defamation usually work, as the little guy doesn't have the resources to hire a lawyer, and defend himself in court. It's a terrible shame, and I wish could be done to stop slapp suits.

Re:Devils advocate

[bigpat]

Hmmm... libel laws where never meant to apply to corporations. At least my understanding is that libel laws precede the invention of the corporation.

Mexican cat juggling

[sczimme]

If those cats want to juggle, that should be their choice!

Actually that phrase just made me laugh. I would have to rank it right up there with 'mumbling chowderhead', used by someone on /. to describe an ineffective salesdroid.

'Shut [your] pie hole' is a classic, too, and is very handy for use on co-workers. &:-)

In the U.S., truth is a defense

[MacAndrew]

"Viacom is built and funded by child enslavement practices, and key board members also bet on the cruel practice Mexican cat juggling!"

Case dismissed.

They don't have it here if you're underage.

[SHEENmaster]

sons of bitches blackmailed me into taking down my student protest site because we discovered a teacher/student affair. They cited libel even though we didn't release the names and we did have proof.