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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.