Slashdot Mirror
British Woman's Twitter Comments Spark Expensive Libel Claims
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "A woman who complained about an unpaid £146 invoice is facing a libel battle that could cost her more than £100,000. Lesley Kemp, 55, took to Twitter claiming that a company based in the Middle East had failed to pay her promptly for transcription work. Now the firm is suing Mrs Kemp, of Milton Keynes, for defamation, claiming up to £50,000 in damages and a further £70,000 in costs. The company, Resolution Productions, based in Qatar, has yet to comment."
The court has to determine the facts of the matter -- these facts can not be merely assumed as you seem to imply. Thus the court case, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was dishonest and caused harm -- so the court must now make a decision on these claims from the evidence and arguments submitted.
However, the fact that a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono shows that her statements were indeed based upon fact.
Slashdot, we BADLY NEED a button at THE TOP of the message that says HIDE THIS FUCKING SPAM. Maybe another one that says ADMINISTRATORS, NUKE THIS BASTARD IMMEDIATELY. A lot of us browse at -1 so we can conscienciously moderate. I have rescued a few worthwhile comments from unfair -1's they reached just because enough assholes disagreed with them.
Or maybe, all we need is a -2 score level for outright spam with the presumption that if enough moderators pile on to lower something to -2, it's not even worth seeing that shit.
The Truth is Never Libelous
Wrong. The truth is an absolute defense against libel in the United States of America . But if you read a little closer you will see that this woman is British, and British libel and defamation laws are nothing like their American counterparts. Scientists have been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus". The fact that his statement is demonstrably true didn't help at all. British libel laws are not only outrageous for their own citizens, but can also be applied to extraterritorial statements, so there is an entire legal sub-industry of Libel Tourism.
As Americans, we should never take our freedoms for granted. Just glance across the pond for an example of a country at the bottom of the slippery slope.
Interesting that you said "a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono [publico]" [emphasis mine]. I was under the impression that "barrister" was the British term for attorney and lawyer. A quick check on wikipedia shows otherwise. Thanks for educating me, or at least pointing me towards getting educated! Barristers and solicitors in england are the splitting of the legal profession into two categories.
-- Those who can represent themselves in place of the client and conduct litigation on behalf of the client are called solicitors, and solicitors are attorneys at law.
-- A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that, while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified professional clients, such as patent agents.
-- A lawyer is one "learned in the law", and can be an attorney, counsel, or a solicitor.
-- An is the official name for lawyers in certain jurisdictions, e.g. Japan + Sri Lanka + South Africa + U.S.A.
When I am asked to deal with a)lawyers or b)foreign clients, I always ask for money up front. Both types of clients have a nasty habit of stiffing you on the bill. It gets old, really quick.
"I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions."
It's even better than that. The guy's lawyer has expressly stated that the libel case is on behalf of him personally, and that the company is NOT part of the case.
"I act for Mr Kirby Kearns, the Claimant in the above libel action and am responding to the email you sent to a company of which he is a Director – the company is not a party to the action."
As communicated to Popehat -- http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/15/in-which-a-london-solicitor-threatens-me/
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
I agree with that wholeheartedly. The counterpoint however, is that in America you can get tied up in the courts to the point of bankruptcy very easily against your will with no wrongdoing on your part. Don't assume that everything about your system is better. (Neither UK nor US here)
Oh please. There's no shortage of people, both American and not, criticizing the US for all kinds of things on this forum, and much of it rightfully so: wars, imperialism, the war on drugs, drone bombings, Guantanamo, corporatism run amok, corruption, "corporations are people", no universal health care, warrantless wiretapping, slow and expensive ISP and cellular service, I could go on and on.
For a refreshing change, we've hit on an issue where, for once, the US really does things right (free speech, and libel laws that actually make a lot of sense--something derogatory has to be proven not only untrue but also malicious for you to get in trouble for it). It's fine that Americans are proud of this.
I'm definitely not making the assumption that the US system is better. It's fairly clear to me, though, that "free speech" isn't held in quite the same regard in English courts as it is in the US.
As an aside, I (a US citizen) was once threatened (by a UK entity) with legal action for comments that appeared on a website I run. The website is US-based, and the comments were firmly in the realm of opinion, and thus perfectly legal under US law. At the time, the law shielding US citizens from abuse by UK courts had been passed by congress, but not yet signed into law. I was actually sweating it for a couple weeks while I waited for the bill to be signed into law.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.