Bloggers Versus Billionaire

Roger Whittaker writes "An interesting case in England is pitting the combined power of multiple bloggers against an Uzbek billionaire. The bloggers are supporting the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has written a book about what happened there after the fall of Communism. The book is apparently unflattering in the extreme to oligarch Alisher Usmanov, who has engaged the law firm Schillings (which seems to specialize in getting unfavorable Web content removed for rich clients). Their threats have led to the removal of Murray's blog site by his hosting company Fasthosts. But a large number of bloggers have taken up Murray's cause, and the content that caused the original complaint, and links to it, have now sprung up in a very large number of places. The Internet still seems to regard censorship as damage and route around it."

Comments

Re:Ha -- I love it when aggressive behavior backfi

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the Streisand effect, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect Bet he's got a smaller nose though :-)

Boiling dissidents alive

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this perhaps the same guy who's famous for boiling people alive: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3943.htm

Re:Boiling dissidents alive

[arivanov]

No, but he is one of his best friends. As the proverb says "Tell me who are your friends and I will tell you who you are". That's valid about Bush as well by the way.

The Blog Text

[Anonymous Coward]

September 2, 2007

Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist

I thought I should make my views on Alisher Usmanov quite plain to you. You are unlikely to see much plain talking on Usmanov elsewhere in the media becuase he has already used his billions and his lawyers in a pre-emptive strike. They have written to all major UK newspapers, including the latter:

"Mr Usmanov was imprisoned for various offences under the old Soviet regime. We wish to make it clear our client did not commit any of the offences with which he was charged. He was fully pardoned after President Mikhail Gorbachev took office. All references to these matters have now been expunged from police records . . . Mr Usmanov does not have any criminal record."

Let me make it quite clear that Alisher Usmanov is a criminal. He was in no sense a political prisoner, but a gangster and racketeer who rightly did six years in jail. The lawyers cunningly evoke "Gorbachev", a name respected in the West, to make us think that justice prevailed. That is completely untrue.

Usmanov's pardon was nothing to do with Gorbachev. It was achieved through the growing autonomy of another thug, President Karimov, at first President of the Uzbek Soviet Socilist Republic and from 1991 President of Uzbekistan. Karimov ordered the "Pardon" because of his alliance with Usmanov's mentor, Uzbek mafia boss and major international heroin overlord Gafur Rakimov. Far from being on Gorbachev's side, Karimov was one of the Politburo hardliners who had Gorbachev arrested in the attempted coup that was thwarted by Yeltsin standing on the tanks outside the White House.

Usmanov is just a criminal whose gangster connections with one of the World's most corrupt regimes got him out of jail. He then plunged into the "privatisation" process at a time when gangster muscle was used to secure physical control of assets, and the alliance between the Russian Mafia and Russian security services was being formed.

Usmanov has two key alliances. he is very close indeed to President Karimov, and especially to his daughter Gulnara. It was Usmanov who engineered the 2005 diplomatic reversal in which the United States was kicked out of its airbase in Uzbekistan and Gazprom took over the country's natural gas assets. Usmanov, as chairman of Gazprom Investholdings paid a bribe of $88 million to Gulnara Karimova to secure this. This is set out on page 366 of Murder in Samarkand.

Alisher Usmanov had risen to chair of Gazprom Investholdings because of his close personal friendship with Putin, He had accessed Putin through Putin's long time secretary and now chef de cabinet, Piotr Jastrzebski. Usmanov and Jastrzebski were roommates at college. Gazprominvestholdings is the group that handles Gazproms interests outside Russia, Usmanov's role is, in effect, to handle Gazprom's bribery and sleaze on the international arena, and the use of gas supply cuts as a threat to uncooperative satellite states.

Gazprom has also been the tool which Putin has used to attack internal democracy and close down the independent media in Russia. Gazprom has bought out - with the owners having no choice - the only independent national TV station and numerous rgional TV stations, several radio stations and two formerly independent national newspapers. These have been changed into slavish adulation of Putin. Usmanov helped accomplish this through Gazprom. The major financial newspaper, Kommersant, he bought personally. He immediately replaced the editor-in-chief with a pro-Putin hack, and three months later the long-serving campaigning defence correspondent, Ivan Safronov, mysteriously fell to his death from a window.

All this, both on Gazprom and the journalist's death, is set out in great detail here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html

Usmanov is also dogged by the wides

Re:The Blog Text

[Anonymous Coward]

The detailled article from http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html :

June 1, 2007
Russian Journalist Murders, and Gazprom

I believe I may have found the way to post the original text of my Recent Mail Russian articles, without taking over the whole weblog:

Two months ago, 51 year old Ivan Safronov, defence correspondent of the authoritative Kommersant newspaper in Moscow, came home from work. He had bought a few groceries on the way, apparently for the evening meal. On the street where he lived, as he passed the chemist's shop in front of the cluster of grim Soviet era apartment blocks, he met his neighbour, Olga Petrovna. She tells me that he smiled from under his hat and nodded to her. After a mild winter, Moscow had turned cold in March and Safronov held his carrier bag of groceries in one hand while the other clutched the lapels of his coat closed against the snow. Fifty yards further on he arrived at the entrance to his block, and punched in the code - 6 and 7 together, then 2 - which opened the mechanical lock of the rough, grey metal door at the entrance to the concrete hallway. He passed on into the gloomy dank corridor.

The identification this week of a "former" KGB officer, Andre Luguvoi, as the chief suspect in the murder in London of dissident Alexander Litvinenko, and Russia's curt refusal to extradite him, reflects once again just how ruthless and audacious Putin's Russian has become - and how little we can do about it. But in fact there is a less obvious, but more sinister, danger from the Kremlin that threatens the future security of every British citizen.

MOSCOW

Two months ago, 51 year old Ivan Safronov, defence correspondent of the authoritative Kommersant newspaper in Moscow, came home from work. He had bought a few groceries on the way, apparently for the evening meal. On the street where he lived, as he passed the chemist's shop in front of the cluster of grim Soviet era apartment blocks, he met his neighbour, Olga Petrovna. She tells me that he smiled from under his hat and nodded to her. After a mild winter, Moscow had turned cold in March and Safronov held his carrier bag of groceries in one hand while the other clutched the lapels of his coat closed against the snow. Fifty yards further on he arrived at the entrance to his block, and punched in the code - 6 and 7 together, then 2 - which opened the mechanical lock of the rough, grey metal door at the entrance to the concrete hallway. He passed on into the gloomy dank corridor.

So far this is a perfectly normal Moscow scene. But then - and this is the official version of events - Ivan Safronov did something extraordinary. He walked up the communal concrete stairs with their stark iron rail, until he reached his apartment. It is, in British terms, on the second floor. Instead of going in, he carried on walking, past his own door. He continued up another flight and a half of steps, to the top landing, between the third and fourth floors. Then, placing his groceries on the floor, he opened the landing window, climbed on to the sill, and stepped out to his death, still wearing his hat and coat.

Ivan Safronov thus became about the one hundred and sixtieth - nobody can be certain of precise numbers - journalist to meet a violent end in post-communist Russia. In the West, the cases of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litivinenko hit the headlines. But in Russia, there was nothing exceptional about those killings. It has long been understood that if you publish material which embarrasses or annoys those in power, you are likely to come to a very sticky end.

This Mail on Sunday investigation seeks to lift the lid on the limits of freedom in Putin's Russia.

Safronov had a reputation as a highly professional journalist, meticulous about checking his facts. He was by no means a sensationalist, but had over the years published articles which embarrassed the Kremlin, about bullying,

Re:I'm an American, so forgive my ignorance...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately the billion, as with everything else in Britain, has been slowly but surely Americanised.

So while you're strictly true, in every-day practice, a billion nowadays is the same anywhere.

1e9

Re:Ooh! Ooh! Fight! Fight!

[alshithead]

"England has no freedom of speech as it is understood in the USA.
It is very easy in England to go after someone for slander/libel/defamation and win."

I'm here in the USA so I know our legal system a little better as far as slander and libel laws than that of the UK. However, I do have a very good friend from London who is well educated and we talk a lot about the differences between the UK and the USA. Libel and slander laws have been the topic more than once. It's my understanding that you can pretty much say whatever you want about anything in the UK as long as you cite fact that YOU can prove in court. The burden is on you. As long as you can convince a UK court that what you said/wrote is true, you're okay. In the USA it tends to presume that I can state my opinion freely until the party criticized can prove ME wrong. So, here in the USA, prove me wrong. In the UK, I have to prove I'm right. I might be generalizing a little too freely but then again...IANAL and IANAS (solicitor). :)

Background?

[clarkkent09]

The article barely mentions it, and the summary not at all, but the background to this is the battle over the ownership of Arsenal, one of the big four English football (soccer) clubs. The Arsenal fans (and apparently Craig Murray) are generally opposed to Usmanov's takeover of the club and some of them have blogs, hence the attacks on him and the unleashing of lawyers in response.

Some more details here: ahref=http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/arsenal-usmanov-kroenke-lifestyle-sport-cx_pm_0918arsenal_print.html/rel=url2html-32009http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/arsenal-usmanov-kroenke-lifestyle-sport-cx_pm_0918arsenal_print.html/>

Otherwise why would a bunch of British bloggers care about the business practices of an Uzbekistani businessman, and why would he care what they think.

Re:Background?

[OldBus]

I'm not sure about whether Craig Murray has a relationship to Arsenal or not, but he got involved in it originally by being British ambassador to Uzbekistan. When he was there he had citizens coming to the embassy complaining of friends/relations who had 'disappeared' or been tortured. When he protested to the British Government that we appeared to be approving and supporting a regime which tortured people, their response was to sack him.

Re:Background?

[hughk]

Murray was the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. After having the regular low-key meetings with dissidents, there were several incidents where they and their relatives faced problems up to and including being tortured to death. MI6 sanctioned this because they thought that the information coming from torture may be useful. Murray disagreed with treatment of his visitors by the Uzbek government and also by the implicit support of the FCO on the basis of information received. Craig Murray was well thought of by my friends there - courageous and principled, which is why he lost his job. Murray has a bit of a bone to pick with some of the Uzbek mafia (who are the government) hence his comments about Usmanov.

Re:The Eastern Connection

[s7uar7]

A very favourable tax regime for those with non-domiciled status. They pay tax only on assets brought in to the country and keep the rest in off-shore tax havens.

Re:A few notes on UK libel law

[Tyrannosaurs]

The onus in the UK in a civil case (as opposed to in a criminal case) is on the person saying something to show it to be true (in a criminal case the onus is on the prosecution), and the standard of proof is generally lower than the "beyond reasonable doubt" needed in a criminal case.

The interesting thing though is that Murray has been in touch with Usmanov's lawyers and asked them to sue him for libel and made sure that they know where to find him, and he has publicised this invitation in comments in the national press. So far they've declined to do so.

There's obviously nothing in law but I wonder if there should be some sort of "piss or get off the pot" law saying that where the root of the libel is clear you can not continue fighting those publicising it if you decline to fit the root.

The other interesting part of this is that his webhost unintentionally took down a whole load of other sites sharing the same server when they took his down (i'm guessing they panicked and killed the server as the fastest way to comply). One of those taken down was prominent right wing Member of Parliament and candidate for the London Mayor Boris Johnson. Needless to say this has further fuelled publicity around it.

Re:Is Usmanov Clean?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Ah yes, the good ol' "Noveau Riche" are a bunch of crooks, just like most of the old rich who have had the advantage of time to dim the memories of how families/aristocrats gained their wealth. As someone once said behind every great wealth there is a crime(like bootlegging, or child labor).

Allegations repeated in European Parliament

[cabalamat3]

The allegations against Alisher Usmanov have been repeated by Tom Wise MEP in the European Parliament, so anyone can quote his words without fear of prosecution. Here's what Wise said:

Allegedly a gangster and racketeer, [Usmanov] served a six year jail sentence in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, his eventual pardon coming at the behest of Usbek mafia chief and heroin overlord Gafur Rachimov, described as Usmanov's mentor. Usmanov bought the newspaper Kommersant; 3 months later the journalist Ivan Safranov, a critic of the Putin regime who just weeks earlier had been vigorously interrogated by the FSB -- as the KGB is now called -- mysteriously fell to his death from his apartment window, still clutching a recently purchased [unclear]. According to Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, it was Usmanov who ordered the cutting-off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year.

Laws, common sense, and stupidity

[Cacadril]

Fasthost is pretending to pursue "Godfrey v. Demon Internet", which is highly dubious.

The case Godfrey v. Demon Internet is itself a case that reeks strongly of stupidity. In that case, an ISP refused to remove usenet postings falsely pretending to be from Mr. Godfrey. The ISP pretended they had no responsibility, because the defamation act does not apply to those who merely relay information like e.g., newspaper vendors. When this was struck down, the ISP found a batch of other messages with forged sender ids, pretending they were from Mr. Godfrey and alleged these messages were provoking. They wanted to have their responsibility reduced because of the alleged provocation. Through this step, they made the process much, much more costly, and in the end they had to pay for it all.

The ISP of course also claimed freedom of speech. They forgot to say who's speech. If the articles i question were actually from Mr. Godfrey, he has the the right to cancel them. The Usenet software has automated mechanisms he could have used. In order to claim freedom of speech for anybody else, they automatically were claiming the right to falsely write under the name of somebody else.

I think the legal systems in nearly all countries could be said to have several layers. In some countries it is pretended that every decision is a carefull but strict application of the statutes. However, any half-witted person can see that there is a great selectivity in how the statutes are applied and how the circumstances of a case are found to fit descriptions, or what labels apply to them. Therefore there is a second layer which could be said to consist of mostly "common sense" and "public interest", although this second layer is also often abused, perhaps out of stupidity, producing decisions that sometimes more than border to the mock trials.

However, a reasonable application of common sense and public interest should make it very clear that in absense of any editor, as the Usenet is designed to run entirely without any top-down control, then the human owners of the participating computers must be required to assist in limiting the damage. Society cannot, or at least should not, allow any important damage to persist just because of a technicality not foreseen by the lawmakers. I think that is why the judge made the ISP a "publisher" in the Godfree v Demon case.

This question should be entirely different in the present case, where there is a clearly identifiable and named responsible person behind the allegedly defamating articles. In the present case the articles are entirely under control of Craig Murray, and Fasthost's decision is interfering with his freedom of speech. I guess that if a storehouse chain decided not to carry The Guardian on a particular day because of potential liability for an alledgedly defamating article, the chain could be sued and would be likely to have to pay damages to The Guardian.

What remains disturbing is, that if Fasthost had decided to ask Usmanov's people to turn to Murray himself with their request, there is no guarantee that all judges would side with Fasthost. While I am damn sure that my analysis is correct (even I don't know the law), I am also damn sure that only a small majority of the judges have the brain to analyse the case correctly. (That is, a large minority does not.) Even the little I have seen quoted from the British defamation law, makes it appear like the law carries a list of circumstances when contributors to the publishing of a defamation are not to be held liable, while it fails to say explicitly why. It seems to happen over and over again, that because judges cannot be relied on to interpret overly general principles, the laws are written with lists of more specific nature, and the principle behind the list is not mentioned at all. I think this way of writing laws could be improved.

I have not read the actual text of the Godfrey v Demon decision, and I do not know if the decision makes it very clear why it found that the ISP is a publisher. In