4 ms·

The UK has famously strict libel laws, and notably the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the truth of their defamatory speech. https://www.burnetts.

by jsty 7y ago

The UK has famously strict libel laws, and notably the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove the truth of their defamatory speech. https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slander-laws https://www.burnetts.co.uk/publications/blogs/libel-and-slan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law

lonelappde 7y ago
Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Truths that caused harm (even justifiable harm) were still actionable. In Austria it's still illegal to make true comments that offend religion sensibilities.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Wasn't justification a different name for a truth defence?
tomatocracy 7y ago
I think there needs to be an act of publication for defamation law to be engaged though. It might be rather hard to argue that private emails reach that bar.
- jsty 7y ago
  I'd note that the relevant definition of publish isn't the common-sense use (i.e. make available publicly), but merely "the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person" [0]. Indeed the first link in my prior post specifically calls out defamation via private methods of communication (texting) as something that may be actionable. [0] http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporti...
  - ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
    It seems like the reform act of 2013 might make these comments in-bounds: Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion; that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; that an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published, including any fact in a privileged statement that was pre-published. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows the defendant did not hold the opinion.
DanBC 7y ago
The author of the article would have to be able to show that the comments caused serious harm, that they were published, and that they were defamatory. The respondent would then have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the comments were either true, or fair comment, or privileged. Defamation cases are very expensive to bring and a good outcome is not at all certain.

by jsty 7y ago

lonelappde 7y ago

Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Truths that caused harm (even justifiable harm) were still actionable. In Austria it's still illegal to make true comments that offend religion sensibilities.

DanBC 7y ago
> Before 2013 in the UK, not even truth was enough of a defense. Wasn't justification a different name for a truth defence?

tomatocracy 7y ago

I think there needs to be an act of publication for defamation law to be engaged though. It might be rather hard to argue that private emails reach that bar.

jsty 7y ago
I'd note that the relevant definition of publish isn't the common-sense use (i.e. make available publicly), but merely "the communication of the defamatory matter to a third person" [0]. Indeed the first link in my prior post specifically calls out defamation via private methods of communication (texting) as something that may be actionable. [0] http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporting-defamation.htm http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/reporti...
- ijpoijpoihpiuoh 7y ago
  It seems like the reform act of 2013 might make these comments in-bounds: Honest opinion: It is a defence for defamation, to show the statement complained of was a statement of opinion; that it indicated, in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion; that an honest person could have held the opinion on any fact which existed when the statement was published, including any fact in a privileged statement that was pre-published. The defence is defeated if the claimant shows the defendant did not hold the opinion.

DanBC 7y ago

The author of the article would have to be able to show that the comments caused serious harm, that they were published, and that they were defamatory. The respondent would then have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the comments were either true, or fair comment, or privileged. Defamation cases are very expensive to bring and a good outcome is not at all certain.