Why don't you stop making up stuff about UK laws and actually have a look at them? If the "actual activity and event she asserts is factual" then there will not be an issue, as she can use the simple defence against libel of it being true.
There is a difference between me leaving an online restaurant review which says "the waiter was rather impatient, the manager needed a shave and to tie his tie properly, and the food was lukewarm" and one which says "the waiters deliberately gave me food poisoning by shitting in my soup, and then cloned my credit card". To get away with the latter, you would (quite rightly) be expected to be able to prove it was true.
Are you serious? Are people honestly OK with this over there?
If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?
It's true! I don't understand how the law could punish me for bringing something horrible to light just because the guy might actually need to face the shame associated with his actions.
As long as you can prove it's true, you can defend any action he brings for libel in the UK.
If you can't prove it's true, then yes he is entitled to damages for your falsely maligning him.
No, it's called being a good Samaritan - to prevent others from being injured by a malicious entity (the company that refuses to pay out after work is completed).
If the company is indeed deliberately not paying its bills, then this woman can prove that she is owed money and can use the truth as a defence against libel. She should counter-sue them in small claims court (although presumably as its an overseas company she won't actually get an enforceable order against them).
If she just made the story up because the company pissed her off, then she's potentially in trouble, even if in other cases the company behaved badly.
Fiction or not is irrelevant to harm. She can be right and still lose in court.
No, if what she said was fiction (that is, a lie) then she deserves to get sued and lose, and she will have no defence, although quite what damage one story about a hundred unpaid quid could do is debatable.
If she is factually correct, she won't lose in court
I still don't understand this. The dictionary flat out defines libel as a published statement that is FALSE and damages someone's reputation. Do they not actually call it libel in the UK? I mean, if something that hurts your reputation (but is TRUE) is somehow wrong/punishable, then I guess that's fine (no it isn't - it's stupid), but calling it "libel" when it has nothing to do with the word "libel" makes . . . no . . . . fucking sense whatsoever.
You have fallen into the trap of believing American armchair lawyers' incorrect notions about the English/UK legal system. Truth is a defence against an action for libel.
If the court finds for the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for damages and has committed libel. If the plaintiff fails, then no libel has been committed. Telling the truth and upsetting people is not libel: it is telling the truth and upsetting people.
Obviously, the plaintiff is claiming that a libel has occurred, but that doesn't mean it has.
A plutocracy is government by the rich. Libertarianism would inevitably result in government by the rich, since there would be no method of redistributing their wealth to the rest of society.
The libertarian idea that a country without government would somehow become a nation of individual market traders all at about the same level due to the mysterious workings of The Invisible Hand is pure nonsense. Capitalism is what happens when you let the rule of money/trade become paramount, and with no checks or balances from the people/government/whatever you want to call the majority, the rich will keep getting richer.
Corporations are not some evil bogeyman created by socialists to tread down the poor hard-working small market trader. They are an inevitable result of the more efficient concentration of wealth into larger and more powerful vehicles for increasing that wealth.
Yes, but we're not talking about government surveillance or police abuses or other issues here, we're talking about libel and free speech. Yes, the US has a lot of issues, but crazy libel laws and restrictions on free speech aren't big problems here (yet), while obviously these are big problems in the UK. Focus on the issue at hand.
You and your fellow Americans should try and do a modicum of research on the subject of libel laws in the UK before you start portraying us as a society where you can be sued for looking at someone funny.
It's analogous to your hysteria about CCTV cameras in British city centres. You can't just tell lies about people and suffer no repurcussions, in the same way you can't have a drunk fight outside a pub then moan when the police use camera footage in a public place to track you down and arrest you.
Your links seem to suggest that the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her statement to be true.
Indeed, in England you can't say "Mr X is a paedophile, neo-Nazi and Cliff Richard fan" and get away with it without any reasonably compelling evidence that the statement is true.
If you think people should be free to make up anything they like and not suffer the consequences, I don't think you know what freedom of speech or justice mean.
I was brought up with the old adage "sticks and stones" and all that, its a ridiculous notion to claim harm and fiscal damage by what people say about you, barring some extreme cases.
That would be a valid criticism of the English legal system if there was no such thing as libel/slander in the US.
I suppose media companies in the US don't have to bother hiring lawyers at all, since there's no possibility of them ever having to defend a libel action?
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.
Stop with all the anti-UK hysteria. We also have the defence of fair comment. From the Wikipedia article already linked to:
This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff. The fair comment defence is sometimes known as "the critic's defence" as it is designed to protect the right of the press to state valid opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity, political debate, public figures and general affairs. It also defends comments on works of art in the public eye such as theatre productions, music and literature. However, fair comment and justification defences will fail if they are based on misstatements of fact.
Your comment makes it sound as though in the UK you're not allowed to express an opinion on anything without being sued for libel. That is simply untrue.
"A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true."
If this woman accused the Qatari firm of not paying her for work she has done, all she really needs to do under English law is prove that she did the work and hasn't been paid for it. That shouldn't be particularly difficult.
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
I don't agree, if you say something about me that is untrue and derogatory, I don't give a flying toss about your motivation being malicious or not.
For example, if you accuse me of being something obviously derogatory like a child rapist, I'm not bothered whether it's a case of carelessness, mistaken identity, pure malice on your part, or whether you sincerely believe it, I still should be able to sue you for damages. Your only defence should be that I am in fact a child rapist.
Despite what all the Americans here seem to think, truth IS a defence against a libel action in the UK. The problem is that proving it can be difficult. When someone like Private Eye gets sued for libel, if they can provide enough evidence that their words were in fact true (e.g. that a councillor did take bribes) the plaintiff will lose his case.
You can try and make it a question of "freedom of speech", the fact is that even in the US you have libel and slander laws. You cannot make derogatory claims about someone with no evidence, and you can't just try to handwave it away by saying "it's just my opinion so I can say whatever I like".
If your back seriously hurts, there either is or isn't a physical reason for it. If there is, then a proper doctor should treat you. If there isn't, you need to see a psychiatrist.
In neither case is a chiropractor of any use whatsoever.
i have a shop with a mill and a lathe, a scope, a fine pitch iron, a torch, and few tons of material
every single day out of the year i try to eke a living by building things. cutting threads and gears, welding
structural frames, repairing old shit. i work 80 hours a week, and my hands are cut to ribbons
i don't need a 'day', just throw me a bone. maybe the ability to see a doctor
Yeah, that George Soros and Richard Branson, they really messed up their lives, smoking pot. Such bums!
So? F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway were great writers, and alcoholics.
Their alcoholism didn't make them great writers, nor did it make them better writers. The two qualities are orthoganal.
There are (generally ex-) heroin addicts who become successful artists, musicians and so on. That doesn't mean that becoming a junkie is a good idea if you want to become an artist or musician.
This means if they get two similarly qualified candidates they will select a woman if their quota needs one. That means males who apply are being discriminated against.
But if you weren't (unconsciously) being sexist, then every time a man and a woman were equally qualified for a position, on average you should end up with the same number of men and women being hired.
In practice, the male gets the nod unless the woman is clearly superior.
Most feminists would agree that the world has changed so that if you are an exceptional woman you can compete with men. The problem is still that you're mostly competing with unexceptional men.
Slashdot Mirror
If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
If it were in the US, that would be true. But she is in the UK. And in the UK, truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges.
Congratulations, you are the one millionth American to say this in this thread.
Your prize is a link to the following useful interent address: http://www.google.com/
Try using it to find out the truth about UK libel law.
You don't know what you're talking about, so shouting really doesn't help.
You're wrong. Simple as that.
There is a difference between me leaving an online restaurant review which says "the waiter was rather impatient, the manager needed a shave and to tie his tie properly, and the food was lukewarm" and one which says "the waiters deliberately gave me food poisoning by shitting in my soup, and then cloned my credit card". To get away with the latter, you would (quite rightly) be expected to be able to prove it was true.
Are you serious? Are people honestly OK with this over there?
If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?
It's true! I don't understand how the law could punish me for bringing something horrible to light just because the guy might actually need to face the shame associated with his actions.
As long as you can prove it's true, you can defend any action he brings for libel in the UK.
If you can't prove it's true, then yes he is entitled to damages for your falsely maligning him.
No, it's called being a good Samaritan - to prevent others from being injured by a malicious entity (the company that refuses to pay out after work is completed).
If the company is indeed deliberately not paying its bills, then this woman can prove that she is owed money and can use the truth as a defence against libel. She should counter-sue them in small claims court (although presumably as its an overseas company she won't actually get an enforceable order against them).
If she just made the story up because the company pissed her off, then she's potentially in trouble, even if in other cases the company behaved badly.
That seems fair enough to me.
Fiction or not is irrelevant to harm. She can be right and still lose in court.
No, if what she said was fiction (that is, a lie) then she deserves to get sued and lose, and she will have no defence, although quite what damage one story about a hundred unpaid quid could do is debatable.
If she is factually correct, she won't lose in court
I still don't understand this. The dictionary flat out defines libel as a published statement that is FALSE and damages someone's reputation. Do they not actually call it libel in the UK? I mean, if something that hurts your reputation (but is TRUE) is somehow wrong/punishable, then I guess that's fine (no it isn't - it's stupid), but calling it "libel" when it has nothing to do with the word "libel" makes . . . no . . . . fucking sense whatsoever.
You have fallen into the trap of believing American armchair lawyers' incorrect notions about the English/UK legal system. Truth is a defence against an action for libel.
If the court finds for the plaintiff, then the defendant is liable for damages and has committed libel. If the plaintiff fails, then no libel has been committed. Telling the truth and upsetting people is not libel: it is telling the truth and upsetting people.
Obviously, the plaintiff is claiming that a libel has occurred, but that doesn't mean it has.
Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.
An interesting attack on U.K. libel law might be for foreigners to sue various MPs for things they've said.
Proof that having a low slashdot IUD is no proof against total fucking stupidity. You're wrong, and you're a grotesqely ugly freak.
The libertarian idea that a country without government would somehow become a nation of individual market traders all at about the same level due to the mysterious workings of The Invisible Hand is pure nonsense. Capitalism is what happens when you let the rule of money/trade become paramount, and with no checks or balances from the people/government/whatever you want to call the majority, the rich will keep getting richer.
Corporations are not some evil bogeyman created by socialists to tread down the poor hard-working small market trader. They are an inevitable result of the more efficient concentration of wealth into larger and more powerful vehicles for increasing that wealth.
Yes, but we're not talking about government surveillance or police abuses or other issues here, we're talking about libel and free speech. Yes, the US has a lot of issues, but crazy libel laws and restrictions on free speech aren't big problems here (yet), while obviously these are big problems in the UK. Focus on the issue at hand.
You and your fellow Americans should try and do a modicum of research on the subject of libel laws in the UK before you start portraying us as a society where you can be sued for looking at someone funny.
It's analogous to your hysteria about CCTV cameras in British city centres. You can't just tell lies about people and suffer no repurcussions, in the same way you can't have a drunk fight outside a pub then moan when the police use camera footage in a public place to track you down and arrest you.
Your links seem to suggest that the defendant bears the burden of proving his/her statement to be true.
Indeed, in England you can't say "Mr X is a paedophile, neo-Nazi and Cliff Richard fan" and get away with it without any reasonably compelling evidence that the statement is true.
If you think people should be free to make up anything they like and not suffer the consequences, I don't think you know what freedom of speech or justice mean.
For all the US cheerleaders, here's a thought: whatever happens in a libel case you can't be fucking executed for losing.
I was brought up with the old adage "sticks and stones" and all that, its a ridiculous notion to claim harm and fiscal damage by what people say about you, barring some extreme cases.
That would be a valid criticism of the English legal system if there was no such thing as libel/slander in the US.
I suppose media companies in the US don't have to bother hiring lawyers at all, since there's no possibility of them ever having to defend a libel action?
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.
Stop with all the anti-UK hysteria. We also have the defence of fair comment. From the Wikipedia article already linked to:
This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff. The fair comment defence is sometimes known as "the critic's defence" as it is designed to protect the right of the press to state valid opinions on matters of public interest such as governmental activity, political debate, public figures and general affairs. It also defends comments on works of art in the public eye such as theatre productions, music and literature. However, fair comment and justification defences will fail if they are based on misstatements of fact.
Your comment makes it sound as though in the UK you're not allowed to express an opinion on anything without being sued for libel. That is simply untrue.
"A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true."
If this woman accused the Qatari firm of not paying her for work she has done, all she really needs to do under English law is prove that she did the work and hasn't been paid for it. That shouldn't be particularly difficult.
How is this capitalism?
This is allowing lawyers, judges and laws to be in control. It's lefty shit.
Under capitalism, those with the most money get the best justice.
Under socialism, everyone gets the same justice.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Whatever you're on, I'll have some.
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
I don't agree, if you say something about me that is untrue and derogatory, I don't give a flying toss about your motivation being malicious or not.
For example, if you accuse me of being something obviously derogatory like a child rapist, I'm not bothered whether it's a case of carelessness, mistaken identity, pure malice on your part, or whether you sincerely believe it, I still should be able to sue you for damages. Your only defence should be that I am in fact a child rapist.
Despite what all the Americans here seem to think, truth IS a defence against a libel action in the UK. The problem is that proving it can be difficult. When someone like Private Eye gets sued for libel, if they can provide enough evidence that their words were in fact true (e.g. that a councillor did take bribes) the plaintiff will lose his case.
You can try and make it a question of "freedom of speech", the fact is that even in the US you have libel and slander laws. You cannot make derogatory claims about someone with no evidence, and you can't just try to handwave it away by saying "it's just my opinion so I can say whatever I like".
The world doesn't revolve around you
For me it does, believe it or not.
Yes, this is known as "being a sociopath". Thanks for sharing.
In neither case is a chiropractor of any use whatsoever.
i have a shop with a mill and a lathe, a scope, a fine pitch iron, a torch, and few tons of material
every single day out of the year i try to eke a living by building things. cutting threads and gears, welding structural frames, repairing old shit. i work 80 hours a week, and my hands are cut to ribbons
i don't need a 'day', just throw me a bone. maybe the ability to see a doctor
Why don't you just get a job instead?
Yeah, that George Soros and Richard Branson, they really messed up their lives, smoking pot. Such bums!
So? F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway were great writers, and alcoholics.
Their alcoholism didn't make them great writers, nor did it make them better writers. The two qualities are orthoganal.
There are (generally ex-) heroin addicts who become successful artists, musicians and so on. That doesn't mean that becoming a junkie is a good idea if you want to become an artist or musician.
Did they not let women apply before?
This means if they get two similarly qualified candidates they will select a woman if their quota needs one. That means males who apply are being discriminated against.
But if you weren't (unconsciously) being sexist, then every time a man and a woman were equally qualified for a position, on average you should end up with the same number of men and women being hired.
In practice, the male gets the nod unless the woman is clearly superior.
Most feminists would agree that the world has changed so that if you are an exceptional woman you can compete with men. The problem is still that you're mostly competing with unexceptional men.
You just broke the first rule of slashdot: government is always bad.