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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[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

[Rogerborg]

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

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

[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.

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!

[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.

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!

[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...)

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.

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.

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.)

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!

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.