3 ms·

100% agree with you regarding "hate speech", but I can't help but feel the US public have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to libel laws. Seems to be a

by alva 10y ago

100% agree with you regarding "hate speech", but I can't help but feel the US public have the wrong end of the stick when it comes to libel laws. Seems to be a current issue as Trump brought it up recently. As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A. That seems super fair to me and a great idea for other Governments.

smsm42 10y ago
> That seems super fair Wait until you make a political commentary and spend next 5 years in courts because the person you criticized has a lot of money to spend on lawyers. You may be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt you criticism is true, or maybe not (just read any political argument and see how much of political criticism is provable by law? Is "Trump unfit to be president" provable or "Hillary is corrupt" provable in court? Would you want to risk your life savings and economical well-being of your family on it?) Now add to it that the court is also held in the country you've never been to, don't know the laws of and don't have the money do go there. How fair is that now? In fact, the issue of libel tourism got so bad that both UK and US made specific laws to target it. [1] And that's what the UN HRC has to say about it[2]: The Committee is concerned that the State party's practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as "libel tourism." The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party's unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest. If the UN says you have problem with freedom of speech, you do have problem with freedom of speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#Laws_addressing_libel_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#Laws_addressing_... [2] http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/hrcommittee/ireland2008.html http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/hrcommittee/ireland2008.html
- alva 10y ago
  All good points and I appreciate you including [2], I had not come across it before. [1] was a good set of laws introduced to curtail some of the issues you have raised. The libel suits that I have read about tend to be "A publicly claims B is a pedophile", "B is having an affair", "B steals orphans sweets after giving them a slap" etc. In these cases, I think the libel laws are sensible however I do recognise that it can be exploited by the wealthy in an unreasonable way. I suppose we have to introduce new laws to protect against this, or rely on the wisdom of our judges.
r_smart 10y ago
That's actually technically the law in the US as well, with the addition that the falsehood has to have caused harm (and I think be malicious or grossly negligent -- sorry my journalism training is super rusty). It's just that we're so biased towards letting people speak that in practical matters the outcome is uncertain for the wronged party and litigation is expensive. The recent Gawker case should demonstrate that you can successfully sue a media outlet.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A. That's not the UK, that's a fair description of the libel laws in the US. (Actually, in most cases, actual knowledge of falsity is unnecessary; mere recklessness is sufficient. Knowledge of falsity is only necessary for certain cases, such as where the statements are about public figures and/or matters of public concern, where the Constitutional protection of free speech is held to be at its strongest.)

by alva 10y ago

smsm42 10y ago

> That seems super fair Wait until you make a political commentary and spend next 5 years in courts because the person you criticized has a lot of money to spend on lawyers. You may be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt you criticism is true, or maybe not (just read any political argument and see how much of political criticism is provable by law? Is "Trump unfit to be president" provable or "Hillary is corrupt" provable in court? Would you want to risk your life savings and economical well-being of your family on it?) Now add to it that the court is also held in the country you've never been to, don't know the laws of and don't have the money do go there. How fair is that now? In fact, the issue of libel tourism got so bad that both UK and US made specific laws to target it. [1] And that's what the UN HRC has to say about it[2]: The Committee is concerned that the State party's practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as "libel tourism." The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party's unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest. If the UN says you have problem with freedom of speech, you do have problem with freedom of speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#Laws_addressing_libel_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism#Laws_addressing_... [2] http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/hrcommittee/ireland2008.html http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/hrcommittee/ireland2008.html

alva 10y ago
All good points and I appreciate you including [2], I had not come across it before. [1] was a good set of laws introduced to curtail some of the issues you have raised. The libel suits that I have read about tend to be "A publicly claims B is a pedophile", "B is having an affair", "B steals orphans sweets after giving them a slap" etc. In these cases, I think the libel laws are sensible however I do recognise that it can be exploited by the wealthy in an unreasonable way. I suppose we have to introduce new laws to protect against this, or rely on the wisdom of our judges.

r_smart 10y ago

That's actually technically the law in the US as well, with the addition that the falsehood has to have caused harm (and I think be malicious or grossly negligent -- sorry my journalism training is super rusty). It's just that we're so biased towards letting people speak that in practical matters the outcome is uncertain for the wronged party and litigation is expensive. The recent Gawker case should demonstrate that you can successfully sue a media outlet.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A. That's not the UK, that's a fair description of the libel laws in the US. (Actually, in most cases, actual knowledge of falsity is unnecessary; mere recklessness is sufficient. Knowledge of falsity is only necessary for certain cases, such as where the statements are about public figures and/or matters of public concern, where the Constitutional protection of free speech is held to be at its strongest.)