4 ms·
Nobody is denying their right to do it. The question is whether publishers should operate in an environment where they're legally liable for the speech they cho
by darawk 7y ago
Nobody is denying their right to do it. The question is whether publishers should operate in an environment where they're legally liable for the speech they choose to publish.
- ceejayoz 7y agoMy opinion: A publisher who knowingly publishes libelous material should be on the hook. My concurrent opinion: Britain's libel laws specifically are toxic and should be reformed.
- darawk 7y agoYa libel is in a different category, IMO. I completely agree libel should not be tolerated. But I don't think anyone is saying Flynn's book was libelous.
- ceejayoz 7y agoThe glossed-over underlying issue in the linked article is that Britain's libel laws are notoriously hard to defend against. In the US, a comment has to be proven libelous; in the UK, you have to prove it isn't.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 7y agoThe letter from Emerald says this: > There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. [...] > Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald’s reputation and the significant possibility of legal action. Substantial changes to the content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further concern to Emerald. This is talking about the risk of defamation.