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."
But the 'no-win-no-fee' will make it a no-cost low-effort to suppress unwanted speech. There is a big difference between libel and things you do not want to hear.
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.
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?
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
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.
Unfortunately USA will learn that it works and implement those laws too.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
*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.
Extradition is governed by treaties and only applies to criminal cases. Most extradition treaties require the demanding country to prove a prima facie case of a crime. If the UK suddenly made libel a crime so it could extradite violators, most countries would change their extradition treaties accordingly.
The article is just being sensationalist. It sucks if you are in the UK, or have your servers there, or if you have property within the UK, but the rest of the world is not affected by the UK civil law. The end effect will be that servers will not be hosted in the UK and media companies will avoid it as well.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
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."
if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
Because we wanted to pick a hard number that can be applied to everyone, without having to give a fuzzy profile to every criminal.
We picked 18. At 18 you can vote, you can marry, and you are liable for the entirety of your own actions. We could have picked 16, or 25, or 30, but we picked 18.
Oh, and punnishment IS based on mind-set and maturity. Even if you're a minor, you can be tried as an adult for especially henious crimes. And if you're over 18 and mentally undeveloped, well, then you're essentially treated like a child.
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
Agreed.
Now I know Ive posted this before, but there are just so many instances of this nonsense, that I feel it needs to be repeated at every opportunity.
A local company, Caton Commercial, decided to send a threatening letter in an attempt to prevent the publication of the public court schedule of their pending cases. Claims of libel were made, along with copyright, trademark, and CRIMINAL charges. You can read the poorly thought out Cease and Desist Letter here.
It did not seem to matter to them that the ACTUAL COURT was publishing this info that was being linked to. I did not back down, or respond in any way to their threats. Ive never heard another word about it from this company, or their lawyer. It seems that having such asinine claims and accusations published for the world to see, is the best way to respond to such ignorant claims of the self-important.
And while it was not a once in a lifetime experience(although hearing a lawyer try to argue that the courts own publicly published information was libel would have been), it also did NOT leave me in a world of hurt for not backing down. In fact quite the opposite, it gave me a feeling of great confidence that the things that are important to me are worth fighting for, and that I have the integrity to stick to what I believe with my actions, as well as my words.
Needless to say, the actual cowards are the ones who send out letters like this.
No surprise there.
"Liberals" seek government surveilence to "protect" people from themselves. "Conservatives" seek government surveilence to "protect" people from terrorists.
"Libertarians" seek citizen surveilence to protect people from their government.
Say what you will about the "craziness" of this or that Libertarian idea... they correctly understand that no matter who's in power, they're always trying to screw you.
FanFictionRecs.net
Actually, in the UK, truth is a strict defense against libel. Holocaust Denier David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt over the UK edition of her book, Denying the Holocaust, in which she called Irving
Irving lost after a trial in which his scholarship on the Holocaust was shown to be fraudulent and he was demonstrated to be a bigot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Libel_suit
In the U.S., truth is not a strict defense against libel:
Your belief above that honestly believing something is sufficient, is not strictly true: It depends upon the jurisdiction you're in.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Mothers against drunk driving is the party that is responsible for that. Before they got the law changed you could drink at 18.
Freedom of speech means allowing those with invalid criticisms to express them.
It is not that you made false and/or misleading claims, the way the law is written you can face libel even if your claims are true as a way for the person, organization, or company you are making the claims against files a case against you in the UK and you cannot afford to defend yourself or you cannot prove the claims are true because the person who told you them refuses to fly to the UK to defend you because it costs too much to do so.
It is not innocent until proven guilty, you are considered guilty and have to prove yourself innocent. It can be abused to take away free speech by claiming said speech on the Internet is libel in the UK.
Everywhere else in the world it can be considered the truth, but in the UK it is libel unless you can prove it is true.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Ultimately Brits are STILL Subjects and not citizens.
They are only allowed to speak in public at the pleasure of the crown (although the Crown tries to exercise restraint)... and that's still legal precedent for many things regarding "individual" rights. Brits have only the rights the Magna Carta and other documents SAY they have... the Crown reserves the right to keep all the others. Versus the US where States and individuals have all the rights unless the government has a good reason to take them away.
Yea, I know. I just had one of those "Someone on the Internet is wrong!" moments.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
The UK functions almost entirely on unspoken agreements. We don't have an official constitution- but we do have an unspoken agreement that one is there, and that you're not allowed to change it (although political parties have wanted to do so plenty of times). We don't have protected constitutional rights- but we do have unspoken agreement that governments aren't allowed to repeal those rights that aren't there or else something bad might happen (and curiously enough, that one's always seemed to work).
The Queen very much exists in a state of perpetual unspoken agreement. Although technically we're all her property, we all agree not to make a fuss as long as she never tries to exert her ownership in any way (and she doesn't). Although technically she has supreme power of governance, we're all happy to ignore that fact for as long as no-one mentions it too loudly. Technically we can't oust her without violent revolution, but in actuality we all know that we can (as have many of her subjects in ex-Empire countries); both we and her pretend that we can't for as long as she behaves like we can (but equally, as she's only around for the image of the thing, she's not allowed to mention it either so as not to wreck the illusion).
The upshot of all this is no-one is actually terribly sure what will happen if, for example, the government tries to take away an important right. Maybe they'll be allowed to. Maybe the Queen (who technically has to sign off every single law personally) might refuse to pass it in to law (for her own self-preservation if nothing else). Maybe that bloody revolution everyone seems to have had might finally happen in Britain (we're only a couple of centuries late to the party). Maybe the Scots and the Welsh might get together and liberate the English. Maybe option D. It's anyone's guess.
Britain can be confusing.
She is your queen mate. If anything, the Scottish monarchy took over in England when James I/James VI came south in 1603, so we should be complaining about having to pay for your queen, not vice versa.