Slashdot Mirror
UK Libel Law Is a Global Threat To Web Free Speech
uctpjac writes "London media lawyer Emily MacManus argues that UK libel law has three features which make it the 'defamation tourism' capital of the world and a serious threat to Web free speech. First, there is no free speech presumption in the UK as there is, for example, in the US. Second, every access of a Web page is considered to be a separate act of publication in the UK (unlike the US, where 'original publication' holds). Third, 'no-win-no-fee' libel litigation is now allowed in the UK. If any blog, anywhere, publishes something you'd like taken down, threaten libel action in the UK: no one except the super-rich can afford to even take these cases to court, so media lawyers advise publishers to 'take it down, take it down quickly, take it down again.' There's not much chance that the judges will move the law any time soon because they just aren't seeing the cases that could cause them to set new precedent."
She's not a human being!!!
(Old song...)
and some people brag and boast about living in said country...
So, in summary, UK law prevents a poster from making libelous claims on the web. I didn't think the right to free speech came with the right to defame; even in the US.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Please elaborate, because I fail to see the point.
If you mean it should be given to another, separate, international entity, you are absolutely right. But I get the feeling that you'd rather maintain the status quo, and I can't see how that would help in matters like these...
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
So that the filthy stinking rich can do whatever they want. The powers that be can accuse you of anything and if you don't have the money you can't defend yourself. Especially lately where the whole innocent until proven guilty no longer exists. The onus is on you to prove your not guilty at quite a substantial cost. There is also no penalty for making false accusations which allows extreme abuse of the law. In Canada now there are some laws police are allowed to administer a summary penalty with no chance to ever prove your innocence. And no recourse before the courts,you can't even appeal to a judge. And this is illegal under Canadian constitution but you are not allowed to take the matter to court. So much for having a Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms if you are not allowed to exercise your supposed rights.
Sooooo, what does this mean to a citizen of another country (say the United States) who has no assets in GB? Are they able to reach out and touch you?
You mean the UK, right? Of course, giving the DNS to the UN would be a problem, after that idiot "no criticism of religions" resolution that they passed.
Why does libel law exist? I really don't understand. Why not just give a `right of reply' and be done with it? Suing for libel, just makes more people aware of whatever it was...
I'm not a British citizen. I have no assets in the UK anybody could seize.
Why should I care if you sue me in a UK court? You could get a court order entitling you to a million pound. How would you collect? Ask me to send you a cheque from the US?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
There most certainly is free speech in the UK, they exported that ideal to the rest of the world and their former colonies.
Libel is something very different. In the US you can lie about someone in print, in the UK you cannot as you have to show your proof. That's why they like the UK libel laws.
Yup. Giving DNS control to any body outside of the USA would be FAIL. The only country I trust to keep DNS poison free is the USA. Let's face it, the only place in the world where /everyone/ has a voice on such matters is the USA.
(OK, OK, you might argue that the communists and fascists don't have a voice, but they are the ones that want to censor, thereby eliminating other voices.)
I am pretty sure a UK libel judgement against foreign citizens and servers cannot be enforced. A UK judgement cannot be enforced against servers located in the United States. That would be an abrogation of the rights of the United States to be the sole police of its citizenry. Imagine a world where foreign judgements are enforceable: courts in Nigeria would be issuing summons to Bill Gates for millions of dollars!
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
So what. Someone can sue me in the UK but it has no influence on me outside the UK. I have zero, zip, zilch desire to ever travel to the UK. My country won't extradite me over the UK's absurdities. So the UK has no effect on me. Stupid people in dumb countries think they can rule over other people. The UK is imploding. Let it. The smart people left long ago.
I have no idea what the submitter is referring to when he claims that the UK lacks a right to free speech. The article itself makes no such claim, although it does go on to raise other issues that are less easy to argue with.
As a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, any body acting in a public manner, not just in a vertical (governmental) relationship as in the US Bill of Rights, is required to act in accordance with ECHR articles. Article 10 guarantees a right to freedom of expression, limited only in accordance with law, and only where such laws are found to be necessary for a functioning democratic society. As another commenter points out above, neither this, nor the US's first amendment, are apt to shield defamers from litigation.
On another note, I don't appreciate the UK being referred to as a whole in this matter, we in Scotland have a distinct legal system and this is more relevant in regard to defamation than in almost any other area.
If you take issue with our defamation law, that's something you need to raise with the EU, where most of our modern development in this regard, especially electronic correspondence, comes from. However, it's irresponsible and misleading to imply that we lack basic respect for a right to free speech.
I_A_AL, the submitter clearly isn't.
*thinks back to all the times UK posters have bitched and moaned about "rights", not visiting the US, etc*
Always found it amusing in the first place given they've gone completely fucking bonkers with speed cameras, CCTV, "anti social behavior" laws, and of course the UK has much of the same anti-terror bullshit. Meanwhile, Cambridge (mass) just rejected cameras that were going to be installed by Homeland Insecurity over privacy issues. The backlash is gaining; in the UK, it never started.
Our politicians seem to be trying desperately to go the way of England with taxes, but the decision to split from England ~230 years ago appears to have been an excellent one nonetheless.
Please help metamoderate.
That is the scary part, using our own laws against those who have valid criticisms of religion.
I think the recent wars are examples. Secular ideas creeping into very conservative societies. Using religion to gain power and change whole countries into believing scientific progress is evil.
People unwilling to accept change.
I have no idea what the submitter is referring to when he claims that the UK lacks a right to free speech. The article itself makes no such claim, although it does go on to raise other issues that are less easy to argue with.
As a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, any body acting in a public manner, not just in a vertical (governmental) relationship as in the US Bill of Rights, is required to act in accordance with ECHR articles. Article 10 guarantees a right to freedom of expression, limited only in accordance with law, and only where such laws are found to be necessary for a functioning democratic society. As another commenter points out above, neither this, nor the US's first amendment, are apt to shield defamers from litigation.
On another note, I don't appreciate the UK being referred to as a whole in this matter, we in Scotland have a distinct legal system and this is more relevant in regard to defamation than in almost any other area.
If you take issue with our defamation law, that's something you need to raise with the EU, where most of our modern development in this regard, especially electronic correspondence, comes from. However, it's irresponsible and misleading to imply that we lack basic respect for a right to free speech.
I_A_AL, he clearly isn't.
Judges and Appeal judges are starting to get it. In the mean time, make sure you post your opinions of bankers and politicians through a suitable proxy onto US servers.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
'Claim by the Queensland President of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) against Whozadog.com, seeking the source of a posting claimed to be defamatory'
.. ****** ******* .. demands sexual favours from female .. staff & from .. operatives that are after a boost in their political career'
'We are the lawyers for Mr ******* who has been the victim of three highly defamatory anonymous postings which you have allowed on your website
davecb5620@gmail.com
If you get sued in the UK, fail to show-up, and lose, then the UK could petition the UN to drag you into their International Court. Or revoke your website DNS lookup. Or both.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>OK, you might argue that the communists and fascists don't have a voice
Bzzz. Even assholes have the right to free speech in the United States - http://www.americanfascistmovement.com/ - http://www.kkk.com/
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
What is worrying is that many ISPs and webhosts around the world may start to block UK IPs from accessing material on sites they host on their servers to avoid UK legal action (if it can't be accessed from the UK then how can it be prosecuted under UK law, right?).
This could be the great UK firewall the government has been fighting hard for, but so far failing to achieve. Except that this would be imposed by everyone OUTSIDE of the UK, leaving us all isolated and we'd have no way to fight it.
Well, Democrats have been supporting the World Court and other recognition of the laws of other countries. It's a short hop to recognizing a penalty assessed by a friendly country's courts. And then it's a short hop to recognizing the courts of all countries.
Doesn't exist most places does it?
Remember, when the UN comes in and gets its way of the 'lowest common denominator' ( using the WTO as its persuasion tactic ), your countries sovereignty wont mean much.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We in Italy are experiencing the rise of a party founded by a rich moron which controls newspapers and televisions. He was (still is?) the member of the covered masonic lodge names "P2" which had in his plans exactly what this government is doing, i.e., concentrate the power in the hands of the premier and destroy the democracy. This party absorbed the post-fascist party. In UK there is something strange going on. The power has been is in the hands of a the labour party for many years but I noticed that several Big-Brother laws were passed during these years. Laws aimed at the electronic control of the people and at the suppression of the democracy.
I only did a quick scan of the article, but it sounds like the author is blaming only some recent developments in UK law, but not the underlying system of UK law.
The basic thing that's wrong with UK libel law is that the burden of proof is on the defendant. The defendant must prove that the published article isn't libelous, whereas in the US the prosecution must prove that the article is libelous. In the UK the defamatory article is assumed to be wrong unless the defendant proves it true, whereas in the US the article is assumed to be true unless the prosecution proves it false. And then the US prosecutor would have to prove that it was maliciously false, that the defendant knew it to be false. Welcome to Soviet Britain, where defendant is guilty until proven innocent!
UK law in libel was designed to protect the powerful against 'false' accusations in the press, where US law was designed to protect the press in publishing accusations. See John Peter Zenger
Second, every access of a web page is considered to be a separate act of publication in the UK (unlike the US, where 'original publication' holds).
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hacker's_Handbook :
The first edition, which is the version most easily available for download, was published in 1985 and the last of four editions (edited by Steve Gold) appeared in 1989. In 1990 the UK Parliament passed the Computer Misuse Act - publication of additional editions would likely have been considered an incitement to commit an offence under that Act.
So if I download the freely available online version(s) I'm potentially committing an offence by "re-publishing" "The Hacker's Handbook" but if I borrow the (real, physical) book(s) from my local library (which actually does have some copies of it), then that's fine?
You forgot http://www.democrats.org/ and http://www.gop.com
Well, if the UK creates a mandatory Internet blocking list the court might add your domain to it. It might not matter for what purpose the blocking list exists, if a judge has power to order government workers to enforce court orders.
If you refuse to pay the court's penalties, they might also block all of your ISP's services because the ISP is aiding in the libel. Then the ISP's providers would be targeted for aiding in the libel.
Eventually various cases would cause other countries to be blocked, building Adrian's Wall of the Internet.
And this is the reason why the US tells the ICC to go fuck itself.
I think giving more control of the Internet to a country that in the last decade has suspended habeas corpus, wiretapped the conversations of its own citizens without warrant, proclaimed that the protections of liberty enshrined in its founding document apply only to its own citizens (and what does it matter since it's "just a goddamned piece of paper" anyway), created a copyright law that is incompatible with the principles of Fair User and the Public Domain, created another law that makes it illegal for you to know or reveal that you are under suspicion of violating it, started teaching Intelligent Design in "science class" in a lot of places, went abso-fucking-lutely ballistic because some chick flashed a nipple at the Superbowl for chrissakes and doesn't seem all that interested in things like net neutrality, open standards and document formats and the freedom of individuals to do as they please with their own properety, would be an EPIC fail.
Give control of the DNS to the people at Wikileaks, or Groklaw, or NYCL. Give it to the Pirate Bay, I don't care.
But do not give it to the US, the UK, Australia would probably be bad, even Canada is getting sketchy ...
But are lawyers also allowed to defend libel suits in England and Wales on a contingency fee arrangement, and do they tend to offer such arrangements? Otherwise, a party can silence speech by threatening to bankrupt the speaker with the cost of litigation.
Imagine a world where foreign judgements are enforceable: courts in Nigeria would be issuing summons to Bill Gates for millions of dollars!
That sounds racist -- or at least, nationalist -- to me. It is NOT Nigerian law that is a problem in prosecuting Advance Fee Fraud cases. Indeed, the whole class of 411 scams is named after Nigerian law.
That some Nigerians have engaged in such scams? No doubt. Also a whole lot of Spaniards, Germans, Australians, Americans, etc., etc. But what does that tell us about the Nigerian legal system? Diddley Squat! In fact, I'd be willing to put Solid Swiss Money on it: Nigerian courts have probably prosecuted (and jailed) more Advance Fee Fraudsters than the US justice system.
Remember the Union Carbide execs who evaded responsibility for the Bhopal disaster - they dare not travel to or over the Indian subcontinent.
By the way, by the stupid people in dumb countries I assume you include the many, many US citizens and legislators who think US law applies to the entire world? As for the UK imploding, if it's such a shit hole why do we have so much trouble with would-be immigrants? I suggest you look at the maps of forecast climate change, and find out which country in the Northern Hemisphere is the least likely to suffer major ill effects.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
So, like everything with the US, you want it to be that rules only apply one way.
If the US can kidnap foreign citizens or force governments into giving up their own nationals to be tried in the US, it should work both ways.
Of course, there is a reason political organisms like the international courts never charge US war criminals.
There is also a reason american pedophiles and rapists are huge problems around US bases of which there are hundreds around the world: immunity.
1) McKinnon. Not a crime, ex post facto made into a crime.
2) The case against some P2P site that were sued in the US (Texas court, wasn't it?) and ruled against in absentia.
The US already do this.
And the UK laps it up.
if the UK newspaper industry is any example then it's quite easy to publish bullshit.
The Daily Mail does it quite often and I don't see them getting into trouble.
Freedom of speech means allowing those with invalid criticisms to express them.
I'm still cracking up :)
E
" no one except the super-rich can afford to even take these cases to court" This isn't true, as here in the UK the loser pays the fees, so small businesses etc. could also afford it.
There's not much chance that the judges will move the law any time soon because they just aren't seeing the cases that could cause them to set new precedent.
Or more likely because judges don't have authority to "move the law" -- that's the legilature's responsibility, not the judiciary's.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
no cost for the complainant, but the lawyers will still have fees: if the lawyer thinks he cannot win, or gain compensation he is unlikely to take a no-win-no-fee case...
As such, sending a takedown notice is likely to be something a lawyer will charge the complainant for, as there is no other way for him to reclaim his costs.
So why do tabloids get away with printing so much bullshit about people for so long? Only a few rich people have managed to successfully sue them recently.
Is there some reason there's so many UK centric headlines on slashdot? Somehow I think the rest of the world is a little more relevant than the UK.
There is no-one who deserves the death penalty.
I could back up my position with words, but why bother when you didn't?
In the immortal words of Eminem: "How much damage can you do with a pen?"
First, there is no free speech presumption in the UK as there is, for example, in the US.
I don't know that a "free speech presumption" exists in the states.
The constitution frames the argument in terms of actions by the government against the people or the press - originally in the context of a desire for open and unrestrained political debate.
But there has never been a free ride for the irresponsible, the reckless and the malign.
- Anything to declare?
- Yeah, don't go to England
Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me.....
na na ne na na...
Information answer with important information.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
I guess Libertarians don't believe in dictionaries or spell-checkers. Maybe it's because they think the authors of dictionaries and spell-checkers are always trying to screw you.
Or maybe ignorance is a natural accompaniment to paranoia.
I piss off bigots.
it's time for the UK to rethink and change a bunch of their laws. There is a thing called freedom and one's ability to speak without fear of law suits is part of that freedom. To diminish that freedom in any way is an insult to humanity and nature itself.
I'm a Citizen of the United States of America. Remember that little thing a few hundred years ago called the REVOLUTIONARY WAR? You've probably heard of it - you know, that little spat where we broke away from the control of the Monarchy?
Any schmuck from the UK tries to sue me - FU! Go ahead and just try to collect... I'll throw all your notices and demands right into the trash (aka The Bin) where they belong...
Morons... The Internet changes everything. Haven't you figured that out yet?
Before "the web", these sorts of problems did not exist. You would have to publish the item as a book or paper and have it physically distributed via the local system, and thereby be subject to local controls. I suppose in some cases, you could pick up a broadcast via satellite, but by and large a country's physical borders provided information borders. Now with the web, you can email, visit web sites etc around the world fairly unobstructed. Even in china, I think you can get past their firewall in some ways. The question is, will countries, even western countries, snip the wires to try to put the genie back in the bottle? I think you could even find solutions to still allowing email. Why not just "delay" all inter-country connections by 30 minutes. This would make browsing impossibly slow, but email would still work fine. I don't think this is going to happen, but I wonder if the original creators of "the web" had any idea that their information sharing would ruffle so many feathers.
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
In the days of the internet, we're seeing a lot of ridiculous paradoxes between legal jurisdictions that are equivalent to "unstoppable force meeting unbreakable object".
But this game of "choose the laws you want to apply" can be played by two.
You want to sue me under UK libel law? I'll tell Wikileaks under Swedish press law. Good luck finding me.
Nor is there a any law allowing you the right to sit on the toilet, yet you persist in doing so, every single day!!!
You have to feel for the Brits.
Their legal climate is such that AIG's London office can burn half a trillion dollars and endanger economies all over the globe - but, rather than be mature and responsible citizens of the world, the Brit government would rather focus on chasing down Joe Cockney to make sure that he can never buy another pint if he dares to say something that offends someone of sufficient importance.
Say, someone important enough to work in AIG's London office.
I bet you King John is gleefuly roaming the halls of England's castles, using ghostly copies of the Magna Carta in their guarderooms.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
A young indian got it bad 'cause I'm brown
I'm not the other color so police think
They have the authority to kill a minority"
Fuck, fuck, fuck the U.K.
Fuck, fuck, fuck the U.K.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
OMG (Oh, my Godwin). You realize who last claimed a 1000-Year Reich?
I went to a pub last night.
Somebody called me a $unt for no reason, so rammed both of my thumbs into his eyes presumably making him blind for the rest of his life then beat his head onto the bar about 20 time until he collapsed falling to the floor, his friend stepped in so i cut his face from eye to chin with a broken glass then ripped the cut apart with my fingers almost ripping his skin from his skull, then popped out my cock and pissed over both these mugs asking them does this look like a $unt.
Call someone a $unt for long enough and they will become one.
This is why libel and slander should NOT be against the law. Problem solved.
Won't people lie about others then? Yes. But since everyone will KNOW that it's legal to lie, you will have to actually apply some sense to determine if what you are reading might be true.
A cynical reader will be the best defense against anarchy. This is why I propose that ALL speech, regardless of content, should be legal.
What about people telling military secrets? Perfectly legal. So you'd better concern yourself with a person's loyalty before you tell him a secret because him revealing it will not be illegal.
What about "fire" in a crowded theater? Again, you better glance about before you herd to the exits because the yeller might be lying.
Won't that be LESS safe for people? Yes, it WILL! I'll gladly trade safety for freedom.
OK so where do I go to post that some random British MP is having sex with goats whilst the Queen Mum looks on approvingly?
Fuck you, England.
So if you are sued in another country (UK) by some jerk who feels he can burn you in your country...
The logical response is to place a contract with say a service in Russia or Columbia or somewhere where records are by word of mouth...
to termniate the jerk....
I am NOT advocating it just pointing it out as a logical course of action one might consider...
One must admit it would be much cheaper than an international court case against some rich S.O.B.
The laws of the UK only hold sway in UK, as far as I recall, so I think the risk of this being a danger to the whole world is a little overstated. The problems pointed out are real enough in their own right, I suppose, but very minor - but the lower end of the press and their minions are always whining over having to try to appear decent and honest. Strange, since there are plenty of newspapers and magazines out there that have no problem being both relevant and insightful, while still maintaining their integrity. The ones who whimper about this are the ones, like the Sun newspaper and the celeb-gossip magazines, who live on feeding their empty-headed readers a mostly fictional gruel of stupid gossip about famous people; it is a miracle that they aren't dragged to court and stripped bare every day of the year.
A balanced view on the UK laws is that maybe they are a bit off; but it is a minor problem, and I think in many cases they err far too much on the lenient side when it comes to the newsmedia.