4 ms·
While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti-chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between the journalist
by vetrom 8y ago
While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti-chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between the journalistic climate between common / civil law jurisdictions, especially as it pertains to libel law. Wikileaks, as an organisation, and independent of any particular motivational bias has a clear and present interest in maintaining and pursuing a list such as this. I'm pretty sure pretty much any journalistic or advocational/lobbyist organanisation in any jurisdiction with a libel clause has a clear and present interest in maintaining this sort of stance, even if as an American you think it shouldn't be necessary.
That doesn't mean I agree with it, but if you operate in a commonwealth country and do anything controversial, I'd say it's pretty much mandatory.
- vetrom 8y agofor those who arent aware of some of the differences, a factual defense -- i.e. you're only speaking provable truth -- is not a defense against a libel suit in say the UK.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoThe defence of fair comment is effectively a factual defence in UK law. If the statement(s) are shown to be views anyone could be expect to hold, ie including truth, the defendant can countersue for fraud. I don't know if the changes to the law during the coalition removed all the grounds for libel tourism, but that was the intent. Some cyclist, I forget who, did against one of our newspapers about some doping scandal. He won significant damages. It sticks in the mind as he was later found guilty of doping and ended up admitting it and compensating the newspaper.