Wikileaks and Iceland MPs Propose Journalism Haven

geegel sends word that Iceland could become a journalism haven if a proposal put forward by some Icelandic MPs, aided by Wikileaks, succeeds. Julian Assange, editor of Wikileaks, said that the idea is to "try and reform Iceland's media law to be a very attractive jurisdiction for investigative journalists." The article notes one area in which supporters of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative need to tread carefully: "...the troubles of the financial sector may lead some Icelanders to be sceptical of efforts to transform their country and [one supporter] is aware of the need not to make exaggerated claims." A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home."

Comments

virtually untouchable?

[FooAtWFU]

Eh, "virtually untouchable" is not so bad, really. I'll take that over the British scheme, I think. After all, there's (usually) more effective ways to defend one's self against libel than lawsuits.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

I concur.

Free speech should mean exactly that. You own your mouth, and nobody else should be able to muzzle it under any circumstances (unless you are inside their house or other private domain). Slander/libel laws shouldn't even exist. If you don't like what somebody is saying about you, then use your own mouth to tell those frakkers to "put up (evidence) or shut up".

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Entropius]

Unfortunately, this means that the person with the bigger mouth can just shout louder than the other guy. Especially in the modern atmosphere of mass media, this means that whoever pays more can make their statements heard by everyone.

Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO, even if our interpretation of the law has gone too far.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I concur. Free speech should mean exactly that. You own your mouth, and nobody else should be able to muzzle it under any circumstances (unless you are inside their house or other private domain).

So large companies can station people with bullhorns outside our restaurant to tell people the food inside is poisonous in order to drive you out of business? And The day before the election a news channel can run stories that are complete lies, including saying anything (for example McCain is dead and a vote for him is now going to elect Palin)? And so on the sly I can hire someone to call all the patients of a physician and tell them he's a child molester and rapes his patients in order to drum up business for my competing practice? After all he might hear about it eventually. Can I lie about the ingredients list on food I sell? How about crowded theaters? Is it now legal for me to scream about a fire or guy with a gun in order to start a panic and get people trampled to death?

I disagree with your assertion. Libel and slander and other laws that restrict free speech in the name of the public good are fairly necessary. They serve a purpose. We just need to be very conservative in our changes to these types of laws and in the creation of new laws.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[MartinSchou]

Slander/libel laws shouldn't even exist. If you don't like what somebody is saying about you, then [...] tell those frakkers to "put up (evidence) or shut up".

And that will of course work, right?

If someone keeps calling you a child raping, baby eating monster, they should of course be entitled to do so, and your only recourse should be to say "nu uh!". Especially if the name caller is someone rich enough to say ... buy ads in TV, radio, print and online, so that everyone you know and will come into contact with in the foreseeable future will be constantly reminded that you (name and picture) are a child raping, baby eating monster.

You are right - there should be absolutely no consequences for anyone to claim such things. It should be up to you to convince everyone that you are in fact not a child raping, baby eating monster. And if should be up to you to ensure that everyone knows about this. I mean, it's not like mobs have ever lynched anyone falsely accused of something, especially when there was no evidence backing it up. Right?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Unfortunately, this means that the person with the bigger mouth can just shout louder than the other guy.

Yes true, but when you demand evidence, and one of those guys cannot provide any, then it doesn't matter how loud they shout. It only makes the look like a fool, and then they will be dismissed as whackjobs (or trolls).

Re:virtually untouchable?

[MrNaz]

Maybe, but the damage that can be done by lies is often irreparable. Just ask a doctor or teacher who has been accused but acquitted of sexual crimes. The reputation just cannot be repaired, no matter how comprehensive their vindication may be.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

>>>Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime,

That sounds good in theory and might even work for awhile, until you get yourself some future president who resembles Mao Tse Tung. Said future president will define anything he doesn't like as "false" and imprison you. For example: "The communists killed hundreds in Tianneman Square." "No we didn't. That's libel. Welcome to prison."

You need to write your laws, not just for the present, but also so they cannot be abused by future tyrants. Libel/slander laws can and have been abused by governments to silence citizens.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[twidarkling]

Apparently you don't understand how the human brain works. If you're not shouting louder than the other guy, people only hear one side, and they remember the accusations. Look in to "Source amnesia." After some time's passed, people won't remember where they heard that someone said "he's probably an ass rapist." Instead, they'll just think "Oh, he's an ass rapist." Even if "he" proves that he's not even got a dick to rape with. So, unfortunately, no, just demanding evidence in your own puny voice is not going to save you from a dedicated smear campaign.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Hurricane78]

Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO, even if our interpretation of the law has gone too far.

Well, in Germany, it is a crime. And the judge decides how to interpret law.
Is that that different from US/UK rules?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

YES okay, but that's still preferable to the alternative where government (specifically politicians) use slander/libel laws to imprison people they don't like. Just look at Iran right now. Or China in history.

I'd rather take the risk someone might call me an "ass rapist" than saying, "I don't like President Mussolini Junior," and spending five years in Gitmo.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Shadow of Eternity]

If you can prove what you said was factual then it is an absolute defense against any slander or libel claim in the US, as I understand it that's not an absolute defense in other countries.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

>>>So large companies can station people with bullhorns outside our restaurant to tell people the food inside is poisonous in order to drive you out of business?
>>>

No but they can do it with pamphlets, and there's not a darn thing you can do about it. Worse - City governments can pass laws that force your restaurant to spend $100,000 complying with onerous regulations (don't let smoke escape from the chimneys, or soundproof the walls, or whatever), and thereby drive you out of business.

The latter happens far more often than the former.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If someone keeps calling you a child raping, baby eating monster, they should of course be entitled to do so, and your only recourse should be to say "nu uh!".

Well having dealt with this in the past (a certain person claimed I was a pedophile because my family goes to topless beaches), I simply responded to his accusation with the same sentence again-and-again. "That's interesting. Please provide evidence to back-up your claim." "You're a pedophile!"
    "That's interesting. Please provide evidence to back-up your claim."

After awhile others joined in and ALSO started demanding evidence. Of course he could not provide any, so he was eventually chased away from the online forum.

You don't always need the Daddy government to help you. You CAN help yourself

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem you're describing is not the law, but the tyrant. Should we also eliminate rape laws because one day an ultra-religious tyrant might come into power and declare that all non-marital sex is statutory rape?

If a tyrant wants to lock up dissidents, he'll find a way to do it no matter what laws are on the books.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[QuantumRiff]

And when a large company claims aspirin cures cancer? and they sell aspirin as a cancer remedy? Thats just free speech. Or when Toyota says they have the best, most reliable gas pedals in the industry.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[countertrolling]

It is the listeners' responsibility to filter out the chaff. Not the speakers'. Filtering what another can hear or see is a big no-no. Slander/libel are too nebulous to be codified by the person who happens to be in change at that moment.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[ultranova]

That sounds good in theory and might even work for awhile, until you get yourself some future president who resembles Mao Tse Tung. Said future president will define anything he doesn't like as "false" and imprison you. For example: "The communists killed hundreds in Tianneman Square." "No we didn't. That's libel. Welcome to prison."

Mussolini, Mao... Do you have any argument that doesn't devolve into scaremongering?

You need to write your laws, not just for the present, but also so they cannot be abused by future tyrants. Libel/slander laws can and have been abused by governments to silence citizens.

A tyrant will simply rewrite/re-interpret the laws to his advantage.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[MartinSchou]

Again, that works if it's a small voice claiming it.

Now throw in a few tens of millions in advertising time, and you have absolutely no way of making that kind of voice go away.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[BradMajors]

Commodore64_love has been know to have sex with his Commodore 64.

Isn't free speech great!

Re:virtually untouchable?

[azenpunk]

*sigh*

This is from a US perspective as that is the country i live in.

The freedom of speech is a political right, meaning it prevents the government from dictating your speech or outlawing it. It is intended to protect advocacy of political ideas. It also protects revelation and whistle-blowing. All of these are important to preventing a political system from eventually oppressing a citizenry.

However, there is no reason that one should not be held liable for damages caused through that speech. For instance if i were to state that you murder kittens and molest the elderly, and anyone believed me, you would have legitimate damages caused by me and should have some recourse available to you.

Of course, if it turns out that you in fact do murder kittens and molest the elderly, the damages you face when this is revealed are not caused by my revelation, but by your actions themselves.

All freedoms come with responsibility. If you are advocating a view that would allow one to use his freedoms to interfere with the freedoms of another and cause them harm, then i think there is some fundamental facet of the subject that you misunderstand.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You're implying a false dichotomy. There is a whole spectrum of positions on free speech vs. protection from defamation that do not involve either abuses by omnipotent undemocratic governments or letting anyone say anything without consequences, no matter how unfairly damaging to others it might be.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mussolini, Mao... Do you have any argument that doesn't devolve into scaremongering?

The argument is that speech restrictions are dangerous. Are we not allowed to learn from history?

A tyrant will simply rewrite/re-interpret the laws to his advantage.

This is why we have checks and balances. The executive can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. The idea is to make it so that a would-be tyrant has to capture all three branches of government before he can actually become a tyrant, not to leave all the tools of oppression in the hands of whoever happens to be the next executive.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That sounds good in theory and might even work for awhile, until you get yourself some future president who resembles Mao Tse Tung. Said future president will define anything he doesn't like as "false" and imprison you.

As is often the case in these discussions, if you reach that stage, you have bigger problems. The correct solution to those problems typically involves a wall, the causes of the problems, a firing squad, and a subsequent overhaul of government by the people as a whole, just as it has done throughout history.

Meanwhile, there is little point discussing any legal system on the assumption that some all-powerful dictator will eventually abuse it. Anyone with that much power can ignore/rewrite the law anyway.

For most places, most of the time, I'd rather have laws that reflect justice in our society than adopt anarchy-by-default.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

The dichotomy is not false. If a government has power, that power will eventually be abused. This is currently the case in pretty much all countries that have strong anti-defamation laws.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[TheLink]

> Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO, even if our interpretation of the law has gone too far.

It shouldn't be allowed in Iceland even if they go through with the haven thing.

Because if everyone can say anything in Iceland and actually do, most of the world might stop listening, and not just due to censorship, but because of poor signal to noise ratios.

Then the whole thing becomes worth a lot less, or even worthless.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, there is no reason that one should not be held liable for damages caused through that speech. For instance if i were to state that you murder kittens and molest the elderly, and anyone believed me, you would have legitimate damages caused by me and should have some recourse available to you.

So here's the problem. Anonymous critic #451483 claims that Toyotas have defective gas pedals, that Scientology is a cult, that coal is destroying the environment and that you murder kittens and molest the elderly. It turns out all of it is true except the last bit. The problem is that if you can find out who the critic is and go after them, so can Scientology.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The UK government is trying to use libel/slander laws to silence its critics?

If it is, then it's not doing it very well.

And the UK is, apparently, notorious for having strong anti-defamation laws.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[shutdown -p now]

Yes true, but when you demand evidence, and one of those guys cannot provide any, then it doesn't matter how loud they shout.

It does, because 1,000,000 million people just heard them shout that you're a crook, and 10 out of those heard you demand evidence (and therefore know that none was provided). So now you have 10 people dismissing the bigger-mouthed one as a whackjob, and 9,999,990 people still thinking that you're a crook.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Reziac]

That's true, but why provide the ammunition that makes it easier for a potential tyrant to achieve his goals? at least make him work for it!

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Reziac]

This cannot be repeated too often:

"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
-- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Nathrael]

Yes true, but when you demand evidence, and one of those guys cannot provide any, then it doesn't matter how loud they shout. It only makes the look like a fool, and then they will be dismissed as whackjobs (or trolls).

*coughs*Intelligent Design*coughs*

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are only about 6,000 million people in the world.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[dargaud]

Saying patently false things about someone that you know are false *should* be a crime, IMO

I wholly agree, be it related to libel, or pundit talk shows that make up 'statistics' on the spot. If you are using public airwave, there should be an obligation not to lie (good faith disclaimer, etc), and get fined or even lose your broadcast license otherwise. I mean, it's a lot more important than seeing half a tit for a split second, no ?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Because in the meantime, the rest of the peons in the country get shoved around by baseless accusations that they can't (socially) prevent or stop? We'll deal with the tyrant when we get to the tyrant; until then stop scaremongering people.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[mhajicek]

This is why we have checks and balances. The executive can't enforce a law that doesn't exist. The idea is to make it so that a would-be tyrant has to capture all three branches of government before he can actually become a tyrant, not to leave all the tools of oppression in the hands of whoever happens to be the next executive.

I agree with you in principle. If the US is to be used as a guide, however, those checks and balances are fragile. A balance of power is a precarious thing, because once one branch gets a little more power, it will use that power to leverage more power.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[mhajicek]

And The day before the election a news channel can run stories that are complete lies

You mean they don't?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[psithurism]

Yes true, but when you demand evidence, and one of those guys cannot provide any, then it doesn't matter how loud they shout. It only makes the look like a fool, and then they will be dismissed as whackjobs (or trolls).

I still know people who don't believe Obama has a birth certificate, because he's actually Kenyan, and/or think he's a Muslim.

Has there been any turn on Fox after they had both those stories were running through their headlines when the evidence was clearly against them?

I also live in a small community where people frequently make up unsupported claims, often with ulterior motives, and get a large following of ignorant people to protest and shout down/up legislation without evidence.

Further, you don't receive chain emails from you family/friends/coworkers? I get them all the time telling me about the latest fatalities from aspartame and how glade products are fire hazards. Sometimes even mundane things like: Did you know?Ohio has no natural lakes! Just to see if I'm paying attention I guess.

I wish your comment was the truth but it isn't in my experience.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[psithurism]

So large companies can...tell people the food inside is poisonous in order to drive you out of business

City governments can pass...onerous regulations.

The latter happens far more often than the former.

Could it be because we have libel laws?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[psithurism]

actually this case is slander and harassment laws, but whatever.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[theaveng]

You don't know history. President Adams used libel laws in the 1790s to jail American newsmen, including Ben Franklin's cousin (who died in prison). President Wilson used both libel and slander laws to imprison anyone who spoke-out against the war, or his administration in general (including suffragette Alice Paul).

You call that a false dichotomy? I call it documented evidence. These laws shouldn't be on the books, because they can be (and were) used by leaders to imprison Americans in violation of their first amendment rights.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[theaveng]

Mussolini, Mao... Do you have any argument that doesn't devolve into scaremongering?

Don't know about him, but I do.

President Adams used libel laws in the 1790s to jail American newsmen, including Ben Franklin's cousin (who died in prison). President Wilson used both libel and slander laws to imprison anyone who spoke-out against the war, or his administration in general (including suffragette Alice Paul). These laws shouldn't be on the books, because they have been used by past leaders to effectively nullify the first amendment during their terms.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Alphathon]

That works in a perfect world where the listener has all information available. Lets use the example of a newspaper printing a story where some celebrity is shown to be abusive to their partner. It would likelly be read by millions of people. Then the celeb comes out and says "I do not beat my partner". Now, the average reader has no information available on the matter other than what the media tell them. If you have slander/libel laws, the paper must provide evidence and/or proof. Without them, it might as well be one persons word against the other. It is a relativelly simple thing to prove that it has happened - photos, audio recordings, wounds etc. However it is incredibly difficult to prove that you HAVN'T. How can you do it short of providing 24/7 footage for the past year (or whatever time period is applicable)? As a result, the career of the celeb is essentially over because there was nothing to stop the paper from printing the article. Also, in practice, it works by fear as much as actually going into practice - the paper doesn't want to get sued, shut down etc, so they don't print things without evidence (at least in most cases, and if they do, present it as speculation).

Apart from anything else, slander/libel laws do not "filter what another can hear or see", they provide guards against people spreading false information. Unless they are abused, such laws are a good thing and are neccessary in the real world.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[theaveng]

A tyrant will simply rewrite/re-interpret the laws to his advantage.

That's true but having the Slander/Libel Law on the books legitimizes the tyrant-president's acts ("I'm just enforcing the laws as written."). It makes him look innocent - even noble - in the eyes of the citizens.

Not having the laws on the books means the president must first ask permission from Congress first, and that adds delay, and also the possibility that Congress will not pass the law at all. It limits his power.

AND if he acts unilaterally without first passing the law, then he can be impeached for abuse of power.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[theaveng]

Nah.... the C64 only has 16 colors and makes the ladies look pink or green.

You need to upgrade to a Commodore Amiga (released in 1985) with 4000 colors before you get the really good-looking porn with natural flesh tones. Not that I'm some kind of expert or anything. hahahahaha :-)

Re:virtually untouchable?

[DamonHD]

Thanks for the unnecessary implicit homophobia.

Rgds

Damon

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially in the modern atmosphere of mass media, this means that whoever pays more can make their statements heard by everyone.

Having slander and libel laws means that whoever pays more (to lawyers) can muzzle everyone. I'd prefer a free-for-all to the current system.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[malkavian]

The "You're allowed to say anything with no legal recourse" works nicely until the head of governement turns round and says you've done a lot of really bad things, fiddle with children and animals, and you're plotting to blow things up.
Of course, it's a lie. However, try telling that to the vigilante mob that turns up at your door baying for blood, as you have no legal recourse.
Everything needs balances to make sure fair play is taken into account. When one side takes it too far, the other needs to react; life's a struggle, always has been.. It's just the things we struggle for have changed.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you in principle. If the US is to be used as a guide, however, those checks and balances are fragile. A balance of power is a precarious thing, because once one branch gets a little more power, it will use that power to leverage more power.

That is why the best balances are the ones where a branch has to decrease another branch's power significantly to increase its own power slightly. For example, the Supreme Court has no power to create new legislation, but they can strike down existing legislation. In theory (and sometimes even in practice) they can get their preferred policies through simply by striking down anything and everything to the contrary until Congress passes the law the Court wants. But go too far and they get this.

Conversely, for Congress to actually increase its power (rather than merely exercising it), it would have to prevent the other branches from refusing to enforce or uphold the laws it passes, which it can't constitutionally do. That is why the executive has always been the most dangerous branch: The check on the one controlling the Army can't be anything other than a revolution. Which is why any expansion of executive power must always be met with the utmost suspicion: The more 'legitimate' power the executive is granted, the harder it is to stop executive abuses of power using the legal system and the more necessary a revolution becomes. And make no mistake, every law prohibiting something is an increase in executive power, because it is an increase in the number of things the executive can threaten people with if they don't conform to executive demands.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Thinboy00]

IMHO, the UK is a very backwards nation; did you know that MPs aren't allowed to accuse each other of lying, even if it is blatantly obvious? I totally agree that libel laws can get too far and that there is a reasonable balance; the problem is that with some countries, it goes beyond mere laws; in the UK, reputation is and has historically always been very important, and their legal system is unfortunately built around that.

If a legislature isn't able to debate the truth of its member's claims, there's a problem.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Thinboy00]

There are only about 6,000 million people in the world.

I think by "1,000,000 million" he meant "10 million" as evidenced by "now you have 10 people [...] and 9,999,990 people", and by what you said.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Under what libel/slander laws today can someone legally be jailed for the kinds of comments you describe? In fact, in what jurisdictions today do libel/slander carry jail time at all? They are typically civil laws, punishable with fines.

If they were indeed "used by leaders to imprison Americans in violation of their first amendment rights" then the imprisonment wasn't really legal at all, was it? The President might as well just ask the police to go shoot someone he doesn't like and then stop the prosecution because he controls those who would conduct it. It's not legal, it's just the guy with the guns doing whatever he wants, and I'm pretty sure that falls under my comments elsewhere about having a bigger problem if the guy who's supposed to be leading your government and defending your rights has no problem abusing the system or the people.

Moreover, are you really arguing that because a particular kind of law has been abused twice by senior government figures, once nearly a century ago and once more than two centuries ago, it's a bad law? That would be a weak argument even if we were talking about a genuine enforcement of the law, which appears not to be the case here.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

"Whackjob" is a reference to homosexuality? Since when??? When I was growing-up, it just meant "nutter" or "he has a screw loose".

Re:virtually untouchable?

[commodore64_love]

If somebody cares enough to spends tens of millions to attack me verbally, then I must be an important person (like a president or other leaders). Which means I'll have approximately equivalent resources at my disposal to fight back, and demand the idiot provide evidence, or else shut up.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, I did know that. You did realise that it is just a matter of traditional civil behaviour in the House, in the same way that the Queen officially still signs things into law, right?

MPs just use more diplomatic language to challenge claims when speaking officially in Parliament, which may be unfortunate given the almost comical performances that sometimes ensue, but certainly doesn't mean claims are just accepted on the other guy's word. Heck, watch any political panel on the serious news programmes here, and you'll find no shortage of MPs making outright denials of the other guy's claims.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is still better than the current situation where whoever pays the most can destroy the other side in the courts.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Weezul]

Not exactly. Libel laws just need the burden of proof to rest upon the plaintiff and very strong anti-SLAPP laws. If you sue for libel, you best prove the libeler is lying, or you face massive fines and damages. U.K. libel laws are totally fucked because the burden of proof rests squarely upon the libeler.

Iceland's proposed laws would supposedly make Icelandic citizens untouchable by British libel, well that's fine by me. A few companies relocating their press offices to Iceland won't significantly disrupt consumer rights advocacy. Conversely, a few articulate refugees seeking Icelandic citizenship might save thousands of lives. And a few Icelandic citizens helping out wikileaks would could save millions of people from various corporate malfeasances.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Smauler]

If you have no paid voice, then demanding evidence is basically inneffectual. If you haven't noticed, 99% of media outside of the internet is controlled by a few large companies. They decide what goes into their papers and on the TV, and can pay whichever expert to give a quote supporting what they decide. Individuals have no power against media conglomerates, and without legal recourse for those individuals those big companies will just make an agreement between themselves, and screw anyone who gets in the way. They do that to some degree already, since they have far less to lose than some poor schmuck who decides to sue them... they lose = potential damages, possible fine, media group continues as if nothing has happened. Poor schmuck loses = Loss of life savings, reputation in tatters, life in ruins.

Also, allowing libel without juristriction would enable those who were actually guilty of misdemeanors to point at the innocent and justify their actions

Media corporations have way too much power already - I'm not being elitist about this, and saying that people cannot differentiate between media propoganda and actual news and information (at least not now, that's a different discussion), what I am saying is that much of the arguments and facts that the big boys in the media industry do not like simply do not get reported. No one even hears about them. If media conglomerates were allowed to simply lie, most would believe them purely because the other side of the argument could not be expressed.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[belmolis]

You're right. "whackjob" has nothing to do with homosexuality. It does have a sexual meaning in additio to that of "crazy person, nut", but masturbation is hardly restricted to homosexuals.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Smauler]

IANAL - The UK laws on libel are that the truth trumps all, with quite a few exceptions.

There are injunctions to protect crime victim's privacy (which I agree with to some degree; if I was sexually abused or raped I would think I'd have the right not to have the entire country know the details).

There are laws on privacy and laws on public interest, and neither actually takes precedence over each other. It's basically up to a judge to decide... meh.

However, there is a growing trend of "super-injunctions", which prevent even the mention of something happening. The recent John Terry fiasco was one attempt to get one of these, which failed, and resulted in the judge deciding the entire story could be reported in full. I've no idea why this was put under an injunction in the first place, but those are the privacy laws.

I'm most worried about the gagging orders placed on newspapers regarding things like the Carter-Ruck Ivory Coast toxic waste. The Guarian

Re:virtually untouchable?

[MartinSchou]

and demand the idiot provide evidence, or else shut up.

And if he doesn't do either, you'll do what, exactly? Take him to court for defamation?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[DamonHD]

Nah, not you. If the only thing twidarkling can conceive of that is worse than rape is 'ass rape' (which in any case in UK spelling implies horses not people) then there is the implication.

And what does this say about the unimportance of women being raped (misogyny too).

This is akin to using 'gay' instead of 'bad' as a general playground insult intensifier.

Whackjob isn't a great word, but so far as I know too it has no implicit homophobia.

Rgds

Damon

Re:virtually untouchable?

[DamonHD]

Not you, not "whackjob".

When 'ass rapist' is being used to intensify 'rapist' just like a schoolground use of 'gay' to mean useless/bad/unwanted and intensify an unrelated insult then *there* is the implicit homophobia.

1) There is also misogyny the implication that 'rape' for a woman is somehow less bad.

2) There is homophobia in suggesting that all anal sex is always the worst possible thing that could happen to someone. Maybe have a chat with someone on the Castro in San Francisco sometime. Eight pints of beer is said to be the difference between 'straight' and ... not referring to 'ass rape' any more.

Never mind the fact that in British spelling 'ass rape' is something involving equids, and I hate to think what bias that might be exposing. %-P

Rgds

Damon

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Hognoxious]

but when you demand evidence, and one of those guys cannot provide any, then it doesn't matter how loud they shout. It only makes the look like a fool, and then they will be dismissed as whackjobs (or trolls).

Real life isn't a highschool debate; people don't wait around to hear the rebuttal.

Now when X calls Y a pediophiddlerist, you or I may weigh the evidence and consider what X's motives are - in short, apply a bit of critical thinking.

But the vast majority will simply believe it. Another sizable chunk will half believe it - there's no smoke without fire, right? that could cause big problems for Y if he's a public figure, or one of these people can affect his business or employment.

I don't see what Y's recourse would be, other than going round and shooting X.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[CyberSaint]

If somebody cares enough to spends tens of millions to attack me verbally, then I must be an important person (like a president or other leaders). Which means I'll have approximately equivalent resources at my disposal to fight back, and demand the idiot provide evidence, or else shut up.

Tell that to Jammie Thomas.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Hognoxious]

in the UK, reputation is and has historically always been very important, and their legal system is unfortunately built around that.

If it was your reputation that was being protected, would you still call it unfortunate?

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Hognoxious]

IMHO, the UK is a very backwards nation

Everyone there speaks very highly of you.

did you know that MPs aren't allowed to accuse each other of lying, even if it is blatantly obvious?

You don't have to actually use the word lie/liar to convey the meaning. If you'd bothered to read your own link you'd know that.

Re:virtually untouchable?

[Hognoxious]

Well having dealt with this in the past (a certain person claimed I was a pedophile because my family goes to topless beaches), I simply responded to his accusation with the same sentence again-and-again. "That's interesting. Please provide evidence to back-up your claim."

Please post your current and previous residential address(es), those of your current and previous employer(s) (going back a minimum of ten years in both cases) plus a scan of a government-issued photo ID.

Let's do it properly this time.

After awhile others joined in and ALSO started demanding evidence. Of course he could not provide any, so he was eventually chased away from the online forum.

Online forum? Big deal. What if your local newspaper editor (or worse, owner) took a dislike to you? You's send him a letter telling him, "That's interesting. Please provide evidence to back-up your claim." - and you think he's going to print it? LOL.

Yea!

[glrotate]

A thieves' den of defamation and invasion of privacy.

Re:Yea!

[QuantumRiff]

You mean Somalia?

Oh, thought you said "A thieves den of Invasion Piracy"

Cool

[Jawn98685]

Get it?
No, seriously, I mean it is cool that the notion of a free press could be so powerful that an entire nation could be moved to enshrine it in law, thereby creating a beacon of truth for the rest of the world, or a thorn in their side, depending on what got posted. [sigh...] I remember when the United States was something like that.

Re:Cool

[nomadic]

Despite all the chic pessimism, when it comes to free speech laws the US still has a very free press. Not that there aren't several other areas in the Constitution that are under attack, but speech is still free.

Re:Cool

[bsDaemon]

We have a free press in the sense that there is very little government control over what gets printed. However, in the sense that most print and tv news outlets are owned by major conglomerates who have them present a more-or-less unified message. Clearly, the Internet lowers that barrier to entry and helps create a more even playing field, but on the flip-side of that is the problem of too many cooks in the kitchen, more than a handful of whom are kooks who may be a detriment to your argument by virtue of their alignment with you in any way.

There is likely a balance that can be struck which would be better for all of us (ie, not the people who own the NewsCorps and Time Warners of the world), which would likely be associated with other general reforms such as elimination of the two-party system by establishment of proportional voting rules, etc. But then again, we're not really likely to see that either.

Re:Cool

[zippthorne]

Except during an election.

Re:Cool

[VShael]

I remember when the United States was something like that.

I remember when people thought the United States was something like that.
I can't remember it ever being the case though.

Re:Cool

[commodore64_love]

>>>most print and tv news outlets are owned by major conglomerates who have them present a more-or-less unified message.

You forgot about the existence of FOX News.
And the Libertarian News.
And the Limbaugh Letter.
And reason.com.
And so on.

Unified? Hardly. Although the "more government and less individualism is better" viewpoint dominates ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS*..... there is still a lot of variety out there in the free press. You can hear everything from communists to anarchists, if you simply search for them. (Or turn on your AM Radio.)

*
*
* Yes I know that people will object to this comment, but when Obamacare passes I won't be allowed to chose NOT to buy health insurance without getting fined ~$1000. I call that anti-individualism. I will be forced to conform like a paper cutout doll. (Or serf.)

Re:Cool

[Rogerborg]

Careful now: did you check you were in a Free Speech Zone before you wrote that?

Re:Cool

[fran6gagne]

Tell that to Judith Miller!

Re:Cool

[bsDaemon]

Unified across instances per entity. Fox News is part of NewsCorp, which owns also the Wall Street Journal. I think you would be hard-pressed to find much editorial disagreement between Fox Business and the WSJ, for instance.

Also, the fact that you cite web content as a counter-point doesn't actually provide a counter-point, as I addressed that in my initial post -- the internet lowers the barrier to entry, but often times beyond a level which allows for sanity. For instance, neo-nazi groups endorsing in "their press" a candidate such as Ron Paul, which causes unintended negative press for him, plus draws attention to the existence of neo-nazi propaganda sites, both of which are then addressed in the collaborationist media and used to denounce everything from the candidate to free speech on the internet (after all, we can't have "hate speech", now can we?).

However, the fact that I can go on amazon.com and order whatever AK Press productions I want with (apparently) no interference from the man does show that we have more freedom than other countries, or at least that we're let to think that we do.

Frankly, there is really nothing like the subtle tyranny of thought in play in an Enlightenment state. As an "idea nation," one's nationality is defined as adherence to certain basic principles. Thus, if one steps out of the very narrow band of neo-liberalism that's allowed in the US then one is immediately attacked as "un-American," "anti-American," etc, where in a country such as Italy, whether one is a Fascist or a Communist is incidental to their Italian-ness, and thus I would submit that they are allowed more freedom of conscience as their opposition to the State isn't immediate grounds for their excommunication from their nationality.

Re:Cool

[Almost-Retired]

No it isn't, not by a hell of a long row of apple trees. If you can't afford the ink, then you aren't going to be heard. The 'media' is so controlling in their quest to get paid for every second of A/V, or square inch of paper, that the only place to be heard is what is often called mom & pop radio in the small towns. Getting a word in edgewise on a radio station with more than a kilowatt of AM, or 3kw ERP of FM, is only done as part of the 'public service' stuff they might do, like running a radio flea market usually called the 'swap shop'. And politics is generally considered as being off topic unless pop has his own agenda and it matches yours.

As for this idea, I think its one that needs to become real. The slanderous postings not-withstanding, and even those tend to get snoped to death if they are in fact slanderous, will either do the job that needs to be done, or fail, and someone suing only gives the bad publicity more ink.

Generally when somebody hollers 'smoke', its because there really is a fire, and it needs to be contained for the public good. If the fire they 'contain' with the ability of this proposed site to read from anyplace on the planet with a connection happens to be your own pet make a billion off of destitute retirees in the image of Bernie Madoff's methods, well, sorry but you're an asshole that needs to be disabled, put your efforts into trading a little sweat for a living instead.

If you got caught fudging global warming data to suit your own agenda, same deal.

Sorta like Johnny Carson and his monologue using shoes and fits. We make own own beds in this world, and one should be careful what you make yours from. If you effectively stole it from others, then it really does seem to be justice when its stolen back from you.

--
Cheers

Re:Cool

[Hurricane78]

About that beacon of truth:
1. Who defines “truth”? The admins? The Icelandic government? You?
2. The US can still bomb the shit out of Iceland in a matter of days.
3. ...
4. FAIL. ;)

I remember when the United States was something like that.

You mean, you remember when you still believed their lies?
Well, there was a time when I believed my government too... ;)

Re:Cool

[inviolet]

No, seriously, I mean it is cool that the notion of a free press could be so powerful that an entire nation could be moved to enshrine it in law, thereby creating a beacon of truth for the rest of the world, or a thorn in their side, depending on what got posted. [sigh...] I remember when the United States was something like that.

It's a trap.

Seriously. Iceland is broke, and this is a get-rich-quick scheme: once you have a reputation for being an irrepressible beacon of truth, you can charge an enormous sum to repress certain truths.

Newspapers do this in a small way, by withholding news articles that are critical of their advertisers. But if Iceland becomes wikileaks, then it's only a matter of months before they start invoicing the guilty parties when a new leak comes up for publishing.

Re:Cool

[nomadic]

Careful now: did you check you were in a Free Speech Zone before you wrote that?

Before I wrote that I actually did think up the worst anti-free-speech activity by the government I could think of, and the Free Speech Zone issue is what I came up with. Then I thought how that compares to being dragged through courts in libel actions, and decided that as bad as the FSZ is, in the grand scheme of things it's not really up there on the speech suppression scale.

Re:Cool

[commodore64_love]

Well I see your point but disagree. Variety of thought IS Americanism. I may not like the KKK persons, but the fact they have the liberty to exist & speak their minds proves to me that this is still America. Strength from diversity of opinion.

As for Ron Paul, rather than take offense by the nazi endorsement, I'd embrace it as a positive thing. They know that I support the constitution, which means I support freedom of conscience and speech, even for idiots like them. I support minimal government and maximal liberty for the individual.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite all the chic pessimism, when it comes to free speech laws the US still has a very free press. Not that there aren't several other areas in the Constitution that are under attack, but speech is still free.

Is the press really as free as you'd like it to be? The Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index 2009 gives the USA a score of 4.0 and places them at #21 on the list: not bad by any means, far from it, but it's not exactly the #1 spot.

Iceland ranks 9th, BTW, and was #1 in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Re:Cool

[bsDaemon]

The issue with Ron Paul and the Nazis, which I use as an example because it actually happened, is that his public support was reduced due to "normal" people finding out, via the collaborationist media, that he was receiving donations as well as public messages of endorsement in neo-nazi circles. Thus, the assumption was, if the Nazis support him, he must be a Nazi.

It has nothing to do with a candidate taking offense that people support him -- I think most candidates will take whatever support they can get, though in certain circumstances I'm sure they wish it were more cover than overt. The point I was raising is that because on the internet the barrier to entry is so low that any douche-bag can come online and say whatever they want to, often times poisoning the well.

That's an example of a candidate being torpedoed by the collaborationist media because of something someone else did, but its on the same principles that the anti-globalization movement suffers from trumped-up media claims of damage and riots during the Seattle WTO protests about 10 years ago. Most of that was b.s., but you would either have to have been there or go looking for a wide variety of sources, not just collaborationist media, to know it.

the illusion of the "free press," most of the bill of rights, the doubly-artificial construct of the "middle class," (doubly artificial because its carved out of urban proletariat, which is itself a byproduct of industrialization and is by no means a natural human condition) etc -- these are all just steam valves to let off pressure on society and are all counter-revolutionary. Especially the construct of the middle class, which is basically just a wide-scale version of picking "house n*****s" from the field hands. You may get better treatment than the rest of your comrades, but at the end of the day you're still under the yolk, just like the Jewish cops in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Re:Cool

[DMUTPeregrine]

Quite true. Look at the Alien and Sedition Acts for an early example.

Re:Cool

[Jawn98685]

Unified? Hardly. Although the "more government and less individualism is better" viewpoint dominates ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS*.....

[Citation needed]
The "liberal mainstream media" meme is just so much bullshit, advanced and/or swallowed by people who want (for whatever reason) to hear what genuinely extreme right wing outlets like Fox News have to say. In truth, "mainstream" media has a conservative agenda, which is hardly surprising given the ownership of most of those outlets and their wholesale abandonment of journalistic ideals. It's just not as far right as the drooling ditto-heads would like, so it gets labeled "liberal".

Yes I know that people will object to this comment, but when Obamacare passes I won't be allowed to chose NOT to buy health insurance without getting fined ~$1000. I call that anti-individualism. I will be forced to conform like a paper cutout doll. (Or serf.)

You won't hear me object to that comment. This "healthcare reform" bill is one big gift to the insurance industry, adding 30-some million customers to their business. The argument, of course, is that all those un-insured people have their healthcare paid for by the rest of us, in the form of inflated prices and concomittantly higher premiums, so let's get everyone insured so they don't have to go to the ER for a sinus infection. The problem is that there are other ways to crack that nut that have been proven to be far more cost effective, but those were taken off the table early on.

Re:Cool

[Reziac]

Perhaps not coincidentally, those Zones greatly resemble an, um, "urban renewal project".

Fantastic!

[FlyingBishop]

A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home."

As a US citizen, I'm looking forward to it.

Re:Fantastic!

[Gonoff]

It doesn't sound too bad from the UK either. The one problem I see is the possible application of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

How about them making sure it is not just another waf for the rich and powerful to keep the peasants quiet worldwide in case they are countersued in Iceland?

Re:Fantastic!

[Al Dimond]

Does it matter if you're countersued in Iceland if you just don't go there?

If someone sued me for libel in the UK I wouldn't bother responding -- I've never been there and don't plan on going, so there's really not much their government can do short of trying to get me extradited (seems unlikely for a civil case). As far as the "peasants" are concerned, unless those peasants need to do business in Iceland it probably won't affect them.

Re:Fantastic!

[Gonoff]

We know now how much banks are international. Could some court in Iceland persuade an Icelandic subsidiary of my own bank to turn over what I "owed" following a court case?
We might not think so, but finance looks very incestuous to me.

Re:Fantastic!

[ibwolf]

If someone sued me for libel in the UK I wouldn't bother responding -- I've never been there and don't plan on going, so there's really not much their government can do short of trying to get me extradited (seems unlikely for a civil case). As far as the "peasants" are concerned, unless those peasants need to do business in Iceland it probably won't affect them.

And you'll never EVER visit the UK? Not even for a flight connection via Heathrow (the largest international airport in the world).

Well, even then you may find that the damages awarded against you in a UK court are actionable in many countries thanks to various treaties. In fact some US states have put in place legislation to prevent those damages being claimed there. Iceland has been considering similar laws after a couple of high profile defamation suits were brought in the UK for comments made in Icelandic and translated (by others) into English.

Talk at 26C3

[user1003]

There has been a very interesting talk about this (and other aspects of WikiLeaks) at 26C3.

Oh noes!

[schmidt349]

But... but... if Iceland becomes a journalism haven, how will people file baseless libel suits in British courts?!! Everyone who says homeopathy and chiropractic are junk sciences will be able to just get away with it!

Re:Oh noes!

[MightyMartian]

Considering the US's reaction to Britain's lax libel laws, I have a feeling this won't be a problem that much longer, whether Iceland becomes a journalism haven or not.

Re:Oh noes!

[Mr. Tobes]

Well, if this move by Iceland helps publicise the issue in the UK then that's no bad thing. The UK libel laws are a joke - on average the cost to fight a case from either side is about 140 times the average in Europe (Somewhere around £500,000 compared to less than £10,000). It's justice only the rich can afford.

If you happen to be British, and would like to do something about it before the US shames/forces our government to do it, you might like to visit http://www.libelreform.org/ and sign the petition there. The key findings of the report they commissioned make a great deal of sense, at least to me.

Re:Oh noes!

[nanoakron]

Something that hasn't hit the journalistic radar yet:

Jack Straw MP (UK Justice Secretary) announced in the house this Tuesday that he will be undertaking a serious review of Britain's libel laws in light of the fact that Britain is often viewed as a 'libel haven' (paraphrasing) for overseas corporations.

This won't be likely to result in new legislation before the end of this Parliament (likely to be April-May 2010), but at least it will put the issue on the agenda for the next one.

-Nano.

(Yes, I watch the Parliament channel...)

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

(Yes, I watch the Parliament channel...)

Our thoughts and prayers go out to you.

Re:Oh noes!

[A beautiful mind]

There is actually a parliament channel? Never knew. I find BBC Democracy Live to be more convenient anyway.

Re:Oh noes!

[Anonymous Coward]

There is actually a parliament channel?

Freeview channel 81, which is the one just after BBC news (channel 80).

Badly Needed

[AftanGustur]

Before the financial crash in Iceland there was only one investigative journalism program in the media called "Kompás" (Icelandic for "Compass")

Of course, after the banks crashed, they started digging and produced a program about the events that led to the crash.
Unfortunately, when the episode was ready, but just before it aired, the media company controlled by "Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson", decided to cancel the Program because of "Financial reasons", even though this was one of the most popular programs in Iceland.

The episode on the events leading up to the bank crash, made by Iceland's best known investigative journalists, has still not been aired.

Re:Badly Needed

[Anonymous Coward]

....called "Kompás" (Icelandic for "Compass")

You know, as poor as my Icelandic is, I don't think I needed the translation there.

Re:Badly Needed

[ianare]

Right, because all foreign words that look similar to English MUST have a similar meaning as well.

Look up 'patron' in Spanish or French ;-)

Re:Badly Needed

[Tolkien]

They should leak it to The Pirate Bay, problem solved.

Re:Badly Needed

[NotAvailableIsNick]

The folks from Wikileaks talked about this at 26c3 last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3brdA5dSqZo (starting at around 6:50). The videos of the talk go into more details on the process of Iceland becoming a journalism haven and explain what role Wikileaks plays in its creation.

Suggestion: Simply Reward Them

[eldavojohn]

The main goal with the proposal is to task the government with finding ways to strengthen freedoms of expression and information in Iceland, as well as providing strong protections for sources and whistleblowers.

Before you rewrite all your laws and start to upset other countries like the Brits, tossing a half million at them so they can finally come out of questionable status and my links to their site stop returning a 404.

That'd be a really good start and pretty much pocket change for a government. Wikileaks seemed to be operating just fine where ever their servers were located. Offer them asylum only if they need it.

Even better than that would be an IMMI award given out yearly to the whistleblowingest site out there. Let Cryptome and Wikileaks compete for eyeballs, usability and leaked documents.

Changing your laws will attract journalists to live there but, come on, the journalism industry isn't going to be pulling in huge import revenues for your country as it stands. So maybe the best thing would be to slightly improve the laws and use a little bit of change to encourage the principles the IMMI wants to support. Worry about becoming the Swiss Bank of Information and Dissent later when there's a huge demand for it. The places that need that stuff the most would sooner block all Iceland IP addresses than let you host damning news and evidence of them anyway.

Re:Suggestion: Simply Reward Them

[Anonymous Coward]

The places that need that stuff the most would sooner block all Iceland IP addresses than let you host damning news and evidence of them anyway.

The IP the content is served from is irrelevant... if the PERSON or publisher being sued by a libel plaintiff in the U.K. is domiciled in Iceland, then they would be able to countersue the plaintiff in Iceland.

So the National Enquirer will move its corporate HQ to Iceland.... but itws web servers and publications will still be served up on servers anywhere.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home."

That guy sounds like a real douchebag.

Sovereignty needs to be paramount, first

[lkcl]

The primary issue that this raises is that of Sovereignty: the absolute inviolate right of a Nation to enact its own laws within its own borders.

It is essential that Sovereignty be restored, world-wide. That means that the United States must cease and desist from interfering in and initiating interference in other countries. Such as by terminating the one-way "extradition treaty" which has been abused so badly. Such as by not committing crimes by invading foreign countries without good justification or even any evidence, on "pre-emptive" pretexts.

Re:Sovereignty needs to be paramount, first

[lkcl]

no, dummy, it's not flamebait. _think_ for a second before pressing that -1 moderation. without sovereignty, countries such as the U.S. will think it's ok to walk into Iceland to extradite people, just because someone in the U.S. wants to sue someone based in Iceland.

Sovereignty is IMPORTANT.

Re:Sovereignty needs to be paramount, first

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Watch the proposed law be enacted, cue lights, camera and ... extraordinary rendition action 3 seconds later.

Re:Sovereignty needs to be paramount, first

[Anonymous Coward]

Your opinion is stupid - flamebait or not. Who sets the borders? Conflict resolution? IMO, your style sovereignty is just giving a bigger body - the UN or an equivalent - the real power. Not only is it an impossible dream, it is a dream - were it achieved - that is nothing short of tyrannical power for those in charge within their accepted borders. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual. That too may be an impossible dream but it is one I could live with were it true. It is something I can support anywhere, anytime.

You grasped at the soap bar of censorship, UK

[L4t3r4lu5]

The tighter you gripped, the more it slipped away. The grip is so tight here now that you've dropped the soap.

Prepare for a shafting.

(I have no idea where I was going with this.)

Re:You grasped at the soap bar of censorship, UK

[Dr.Altaica]

(I have no idea where I was going with this.)

I thought It was going to be some zork spoof.....
>

Group rights stronger than individual rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

'Indian people are paedophiles!' = illegal and punishable in the entire Europe as well as the new Icelandic speech haven

'Professor Ramkrishnan Ganesh at the India Institute of Technology is a paedophile!' = legal and protected in the entire Europe as well as the new Icelandic speech haven

It's a brave new world.

That's The Argument Against?

[Bob9113]

A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written -- and uploaded -- at home."

That is supposed to be a persuasive argument against Icelanders passing the law?!? That Icelanders would be less susceptible to being sued abroad under laws they have not enacted and have no reason to be familiar with? That "the humble Icelander" would gain the benefits traditionally associated with sovereignty?

In an attempt to understand what must be some subtle power to this apparently dimwitted rhetoric, let us explore the following hypothetical argument in favor of abstinence:

'Sex is a lot of fun. It is so much fun that it gave rise to the phrase, "[Some other thing] is the most fun you can have with your clothes on." That phrase plays on the common recognition that sex is the most fun you can have, without qualification. It is fantastic, quite literally, on a genetic level. But you should abstain.'

Hmmm, nope, still sounds stupid.

Hey UK, how about you do it like the US?

[spun]

Let me explain how libel and slander laws work in the UK. Basically, you don't have to prove squat. You say, "This big meanie said something I don't like. Yes it's true, and it didn't actually cause me any monetary damages, but I don't like it. Make him stop." And if you have enough money, it's very likely the courts will make him stop.

Now, here in the US we do things a little differently. To prove libel or slander you need to prove three things: first, the offending statement has to be false. If someone says something true about you that you don't like, tough. On top of that, the person making the statement must know it is false. Second, the statement has to be malicious. The person making it must have the intent to cause harm, not just inform or amuse. Third, they must actually cause measurable harm. So, if I say, your grandma makes the worst pies in the world, unless your grandma is in the pastry business or enters lots of baking contests, more than likely I haven't actually hurt anything more than her feelings (don't worry, I'm not actually going to say this to your grandma. I'm sure she's a sweet old lady who bakes perfectly nice pies.)

See? That's how you do slander and libel laws so they work as intended. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to falsely and maliciously harm someone else.

Re:Hey UK, how about you do it like the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how you do slander and libel laws so they work as intended. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to falsely and maliciously harm someone else.

Ding ding ding!

For laws to have any credibility, they MUST embody the truth. A legal system that refuses to accept the truth is one built on nothing but lies.

Re:Hey UK, how about you do it like the US?

[Hognoxious]

To prove libel or slander you need to prove three things: first, the offending statement has to be false.

How can you prove a statement is false? Can you prove you aren't a kiddy fiddler? Can you prove that you weren't fired for dishonesty at some time?

On top of that, the person making the statement must know it is false. Second, the statement has to be malicious. The person making it must have the intent to cause harm, not just inform or amuse.

How can you prove what was in someone's head at a time in the past?

Re:Hey UK, how about you do it like the US?

[Hognoxious]

You say, "This big meanie said something I don't like. Yes it's true

Fail, right there. Truth is an absolute defence.

Re:Hey UK, how about you do it like the US?

[spun]

You say, "This big meanie said something I don't like. Yes it's true

Fail, right there. Truth is an absolute defence.

It may sound outrageous, but in the UK, truth is NOT absolute defense, which is the point I was trying to make.

While I am glad I can help you enlarge your limited understanding of legal systems world wide, again, if you are interested in learning about such things, I'm knowledgeable, but no expert.

Re:Hey UK, how about you do it like the US?

[spun]

Please, if you are interested in these topics, I suggest you go to primary references, which can explain them better than I.

In civil law, the standard is looser than criminal law, so when I say you must prove something, I mean the legal definition of prove in a civil case: the preponderance of evidence must show it. This is looser than beyond a reasonable doubt.

You aren't thinking about the situation clearly. No one has to prove anything false. The defendant in a libel or slander case may try to prove that his statements are true, as this is a valid defense. The plaintiff in a libel case doesn't have to prove he isn't a kiddy fiddler, he's the plaintiff, remember, he isn't on trial. The defendant has to prove the plaintiff IS a kiddy fiddler, if he wants to use truth as a defense.

As for intent to cause harm, you are correct that motivation can be hard to prove, but again, this is common in many different types of criminal and civil cases, and there are guidelines for determining such things. If you can be shown to have planned to kill someone, there is 'malice aforethought,' which is worse than killing in the heat of passion. These are motivations, and intangible, yet we have used these as guidelines in law for thousands of years.

Hope this helps, but again, you may want to read a more authoritative source if you have questions about the legal system.

If Iceland wants to reform

[SmallFurryCreature]

Iceland got a problem, they lets a few individuals of the country run them up a multi billion euro debt that they now ask others to bear.

Now they want even more sympathy, yet in all of this posturing and pleading I have not heard the one thing that might me like them more:

"We rounded up those responsible and killed them". Surely bankrupting a nation is against some kind of law? All you need is one loaded pistol and you will be gaining a LOT of Dutch/British sympathy.

Persuasive Counterargument

[Arancaytar]

A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home."

Indeed.

And the downside?

Brain go splodey

[http]

The quote

"The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written -- and uploaded -- at home."

shows a truly startling ignorance. If some British prat decides to start badmouthing me (or some other Canadian) in England, I'm trying to imagine what possible train of thought would lead them to think that if I was going to sue them, I'd sue them here, where the alleged offense didn't even occur?

Sovereignty, it's a beautiful thing. If I kill and saute small children here (mmm, peanut oil), I'm going to trial here. Elsewhere, the most anyone can expect to happen to me is extradition (a diplomatic cordiality) and a covert police beating or two (human nature being what it is) or just a plain ol' lynching (in a perfect world).

Video of announcment here...

[KPexEA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNfIvG4z-g

Speechpocalypse 2010!

[RomulusNR]

could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comments written

It's a word! It's a claim! No, it's FreeSpeechMan!

Whatever will we do when Iceland is overrun with people with the power to say whatever they want?

Freedom Of Speech -- It's Scary!

try TO reform

[AP31R0N]

"I'm going to try TO teach you decent grammar."

It's not two separate actions. "And" would make sense in a case like, "I'm going to sing and dance".

Re:try TO reform

[Petrushka]

"I'm going to try TO teach you decent grammar."

It's not two separate actions.

It can be.

Not in your way of thinking, perhaps; I'm willing to admit that there may be people who never distinguish the ideas of trial and success. But "trying and doing" a task is both coherent and has a very strong linguistic heritage.

Re:try TO reform

[AP31R0N]

Thinking isn't involved. It's seeing that the writer used the word 'and' where they should have used 'to'. It's the wrong word.

Do you have an example that doesn't involve changing the subject? The subject is "try and $verb". Their may be cases where "try and" can be together in a sentence that would be fine... but this is none of those cases.

Coherent? How is "try and" coherent when they are clearly using the wrong word? Just because people can work around the bug doesn't make it right.

Its "heritage" doesn't enter into it. It can have all the heritage it wants and still be wrong.

Re:try TO reform

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the grammatical nitpicking. Ahh, I'm home.

Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So, if I say, your grandma makes the worst pies in the world, unless your grandma is in the pastry business or enters lots of baking contests, more than likely I haven't actually hurt anything more than her feelings

Quality of life is built on feelings. People have suffered great physical trauma, but recovered to lead happy and fulfilling lives. People have lost every penny they own, but recovered to lead happy and fulfilling lives. People who suffer damage to their reputation, their sense of honour, their self-confidence... these things cause scars for life, and the victims may never fully recover.

If all your law protects against is physical harm or direct financial loss, then your law is a mockery, written in the interests of ease of enforcement rather than of justice. You can't just turn a blind eye to the most serious kind of harm there is and mumble something about getting over it. People don't work like that, and the law shouldn't either.

Re:Working as intended?

[spun]

You misunderstand. In a libel or slander suit in the US, it is up to you to prove to a jury that you were harmed. It is much easier to prove if you can show documented financial harm.

Case one: You are a movie star, you have big box office numbers, someone says you have sex with fish, all of a sudden you can't draw an audience, cut and dried.

Case two: you are some random guy. Someone says you have sex with fish. You've got nothing concrete to show the jury. Maybe they'll side with you, maybe not.

Nobody is turning a blind eye to anything, get it? It's about proof. If anybody could go to a judge and just say, "He hurt my feelings, make him give me money!" and actually get the money, then nobody would have anything resembling free speech.

Now, if Random Guy could show that he suffered some sort of emotional collapse after the fish fucking accusation, and couldn't get out of bed to go to work, he might have a case.

Anyone can claim hurt feelings. Anyone can claim emotional damages. It's very easy to LIE about those kind of things. The US system is not blind to such claims, as you seem to imply, it is just harder to prove, which is fair and just.

To be fair, in the example I give in case one, special rules apply to public figures. It would be fairly easy to claim that I was engaging in satire or parody if I claimed a movie star was a piscisexual.

Re:Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Anyone can claim hurt feelings. Anyone can claim emotional damages. It's very easy to LIE about those kind of things. The US system is not blind to such claims, as you seem to imply, it is just harder to prove, which is fair and just.

It's easy to make false accusations of rape as well, and relatively few rape cases result in a conviction for similar reasons. Does that mean we should legalise rape, because it's hard to prove lack of consent anyway?

I guess what I'm getting at is that just because harm can't be objectively quantified by reduction to a dollar amount or some similar method, that does not imply that the harm is not real. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and you can acknowledge the reality that someone was hurt without being able to measure how much they were hurt on any objective scale.

How you assign a punishment to fit such a crime is a different question, of course, and I'm not claiming it is easy to ensure a just result in such cases. I am merely claiming that the little word "measurable" you used before makes a lot of difference.

Re:Working as intended?

[spun]

Oh, I know what you are getting at. My point is, you need to convince a jury that you were harmed, and that is easier to do if the harm is measurable. Fair or not in any particular case, it is the only equitable procedure to follow for all cases.

Re:Working as intended?

[HungryHobo]

Losing an eye or losing your house is a hell of a lot worse than some randomer calling you mean names.

Deal with it.
and man up a little.

Unless you lead a very sheltered life and never learned to deal with other people being unpleasant.
Feelings are the absolute least serious kind of harm, verging on the trivial.

People do work like that, and the law should be about the physical and financial world, not how life makes you feel.

Toughen up and get over it pussy.

Re:Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Losing an eye or losing your house is a hell of a lot worse than some randomer calling you mean names.

That depends on the context. Someone calling you "mean names" that happen to imply socially unacceptable behaviour, in a public forum where you have no effective right to reply, can break families, destroy friendships, wreck careers... but under a US-style system as described by spun, unless you can link those things directly back to the comments concerned, prove malice, and quantify the damage caused in some meaningful way, it sounds like the law offers no protection from this.

Re:Working as intended?

[HungryHobo]

exactly as it should otherwise say I call you mean names or say nasty things about you. They do no harm whatsoever but the next day you crash your car and fuck up at work and get fired.

If there's no requirement to prove that the losses are in any way a result of the insult/statement then what's to stop you from blaming all your problems on me and extracting money for nothing?
It would be utterly retarded to not require that there be a provable link back to the comments concerned.

The law should not offer wildcards to blame everything that goes wrong on people who piss you off.

Re:Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

A requirement to convince the court of a genuine causal link is perfectly reasonable. I have never argued otherwise, at least not deliberately; did something I wrote unintentionally imply this? However, an absolute requirement to quantify the damage caused by that link may not be so reasonable. You can acknowledge that a significant level of damage has been done without having to put a value on it to five significant figures.

Also, keep in mind that we are only talking about claims that are both untrue and with credibly damaging. We're not talking about political free speech, or truth that hurts, or innocent satire. If you don't like it, then don't say things about other people that aren't true and might hurt them. A five-year-old could tell you that doing so is nasty and not acceptable behaviour. I find it remarkable, and more than a little disturbing, that some adults apparently can't.

Re:Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

My point is, you need to convince a jury that you were harmed, and that is easier to do if the harm is measurable.

True enough, and I have no problem with that. But from your earlier description, the requirements you advocate seem to be a lot stronger.

You said you the person making the defamatory claim must know that it is false and must make the claim with malicious intent. That suggests that destroying someone's career merely through gross negligence is fine, so that for example a newspaper would be perfectly entitled to report any old gossip from dubious sources that it didn't know to be false, with no responsibility to make a reasonable effort to verify the story before running it. I'm not sure that's quite what the principle of "freedom of the press" is supposed to protect.

You also said that the claim must cause "measurable" harm. I don't mind a requirement to show that, say, "significant" harm was caused, but "measurable" implies a quantitive assessment. You can reasonably believe that someone's life has been screwed up by the consequences of a particular claim without necessarily being able to label the degree to which it is screwed up with a dollar value, as surely as you can know that someone was going too fast past a school as the kids came out without knowing whether they were doing 60 or 62. The kind of legal weaselry that lets drivers who do that get off because no-one had a calibrated speed trap set up, even if five witnesses who can demonstrate reasonably accurate judgement of speed all say the driver was going way too fast, is something I detest. I find the argument that no harm was caused unless you can absolutely quantify it to be similarly naive.

Now, for a court to assess a proportionate award of damages, that is a different question. But a simple finding of fact, that damage to some meaningful degree was caused, should not IMHO require such an absolute measurement if the other evidence in the case is sufficiently compelling.

Re:Working as intended?

[HungryHobo]

ok.
So if you say something, lets say I convince a class of local children that you pushed Santa Clause off your roof.
It's untrue(obviously)
It's maclicious.
And it may be credibly damaging if some of those kids egg your house.

So you have no problem with being required to prove that the egging is credibly linked to my claims that you pushed santa clause off a roof but if you then sue me for 500,000 dollars damages rather than the fifty bucks it cost to clean the egg off you don't think you should also have to prove that 500,000 dollars worth of damage was actually done in order to go after me for that amount?

That strikes me as absurd.

I find it remarkable, and more than a little disturbing, that some adults apparently can't see that that's absurd.

Re:Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I'm sorry, but you and I appear to be in different conversations. Where have I ever even suggested that something like what you wrote would be reasonable, or that I would support arbitrarily high damages in cases where exact quantification was unrealistic?

Re:Working as intended?

[HungryHobo]

I refer to your earlier post.

but under a US-style system as described by spun, unless you can link those things directly back to the comments concerned, prove malice, and quantify the damage caused in some meaningful way, it sounds like the law offers no protection from this.

You claimed that it was somehow unreasonable to have to show these 3 things:
1: That there be a provable link between the comments and whatever effect/consequence/harm you claim to have suffered.
2: That it be possible to prove malice.
3: That the damage be quantified in some meaningful way.

so let me get this straight:
You don't actually have a problem with requiring people to prove that the harm is in fact a direct result of whatever was said.
You don't seem to have a problem with quantifying the damages or at least trying for an approximation of the damages.

So unless you have a problem with having to prove malice(without which everyone is pretty much walking on eggshells and free speach is out the window since even a compliment could get you sued) then what is your problem with the US system?

In which step exactly is the unfairness?

Re:Working as intended?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

My objection (in this part of the wider discussion going on) is to the implication that if you can't measure the loss, you can't be penalised at all. Some losses can obviously be significant, yet you can't possibly know their true value, so a court awarding damages would have to make a reasonable judgement; consider someone who has probably lost a lucrative career, yet whose earnings for the next 30 years clearly aren't known precisely. Some damages simply don't have a dollar amount attached, but if the justice system is to deter those who would cause such damage, then some sort of punitive damages must still be awarded. As I understand the description originally given by spun, there is no protection under US-style defamation laws in either of these cases.

Re:Working as intended?

[HungryHobo]

Given that people can sue for lost earnings when they lose legs, eyes, hands etc or suffer some other kind of serious damage I don't think assiging an approximate cash value is unexplored teritory.
These aren't magical things which can't be quantified.
Sure you can't say "it's worth 53,062 dollars and 45 cent" with certainty but courts approximate damages all the time.

A polite reminder.

[__aatdha9242]

This may be somewhat offtopic, but Wikileaks is still desperately in need of donations.

Yielding to pressure

[skastrik]

Assuming Iceland would pass such laws on a national level and become the safe haven envisioned.

In cases where countries or organizations felt affected, they _would_ try to strong-arm Iceland to yield. I don't think that a small country would be able to stand up against much pressure from the outside. At the moment Iceland needs all the political friends it can get, and this move is not necessarily a step in that direction.

Why Iceland?

[sictransitgloriacfa]

Why did Wikileaks choose Iceland, of all the places they might have gone, to try to persuade? Do they have an exceptionally good press freedom record or something?

Typo in summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Skeptical, not sceptical

Iceland the new Switzerland

[Anonymous Coward]

IF Germany's strong-arm bully tactics against Switzerland and Liechtenstein etc. are any guide, then small Iceland need to watch out against threats of military invasion. And seriously, if not that then sanctions at least. So all lovers of the truth should support them in their effort.