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."

Comments

Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame

[AmericanPegasus]

Doesn't matter. Due to the legal blockades in the UK, if you label ANYTHING you don't like as defamation, it must realistically be taken down. You might think you have the freedom to criticize your local government and their policies, but all they have to do is claim that your criticisms are libelous and you are in a world of hurt if you refuse to back down. The same applies to a church, say of Scientology. Or any other ridiculous way that those in power would like to keep down the voice and will of the people. Another tragedy of free will from the UK. I hope America learns from its mistakes before it's too late.

Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame

[Planesdragon]

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.

You might think that, you [insert crazy libel here]. But think it through.

In the US, you have an absolute right to state your honest opinion, or your honestly believed facts. So, if I believed that, oh, the local priest molested little boys, I could stand out and say that without being sued. If I thought he'd molested a friend of mine, I could picket in front of his house, until the police finally came and did something about it.

But in the UK?

As soon as I started picketing, I could be charged with slander*. (Or libel, if I did so through publication.) The church would take me to court, where I would have to prove my claims. If I can't -- because, for example, my friend isn't allowed to testify -- then I could lose my car, house, and the $20 in my pocket.

The bad part that the summary went into -- the really, REALLY bad part -- is that if I put up a website in the USA, talking about how a priest in Mexico molests children, that priest can go to the United Kingdom and sue me there.

And there's no way in hell I can afford to fly to the UK just to defend the rights my forefathers fought to give me. Nor should I.

Re:Why should I care about foreign court orders?

[qbzzt]

Believe it or not, some slashdotters actually live in the UK!

Yes, and it's bad they live under such rules. I hope they'll be able to use the democratic process to change them, or the immigration process to make them inapplicable to them.

But my point is that it is not a global threat to Web free speech as the article said. Of course, UK law can hurt UK residents, just as US law can hurt US residents. That's part of the cost of living in a country, and the reason I switched.

Submitter is either misleading or mislead

[g.a.dyke]

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.

Not entirely true - Judges are getting it.

[Kupfernigk]

Not so long ago Marina Hyde wrote an article in the Guardian suggesting that Elton John was perhaps less than a 100% altruistic do-gooder. He sued for libel. The case was dismissed by a judge who denied leave to appeal. John tried to appeal. The Appeal Court gave his lawyers, basically, a week to think of an argument why they should be permitted to do so. They have walked away from it, and the Guardian is now promoting Hyde's book attacking all aspects of celebrity culture, which is being published shortly. The case establishes a precedent and raises the bar for libel trials.

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.