4 ms·

I get the reasoning behind this, and in some ways I quite like the idea as long as it's in a country with a truly independent judiciary. But my concern would be

I get the reasoning behind this, and in some ways I quite like the idea as long as it's in a country with a truly independent judiciary. But my concern would be what kind of legal remedy is open to a small publisher when up against the government. If it's like a UK small claims court, where the idea is to keep legal costs to a very bare minimum, and which allows people to represent themselves in a way that doesn't cripple them financially or legally, then that would be reasonable. But if that's not the case - perhaps someone here can clarify? - then just the threat of legal action could be enough to stifle the publication of politically inconvenient facts.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
In the UK (and I'm thinking in most jurisdictions) being sued for libel is very expensive to defend. Defending criminal charges is also expensive. Neither is similar to the small claims track, which is really only aimed at small and simple money disputes. Anti-"Fake news" laws seem to create a new criminal offence and I thus expect that the costs associated with defending is similar.
- frereubu 7y ago
  Libel laws in the UK are terrible, so much so that they lead to "libel tourism" where rich people try to sue others in the UK courts because the law is more favourable to the accuser than elsewhere, and as you say it's expensive to defend yourself. My reference to the UK small claims court was simply because it seems like a sensible way of settling differences with as little friction and cost as possible, and I could see that format working to level the playing field between a government and a publisher. It seems unlikely, because that's not usually the way things go, but it would be an interesting way to actually tackle this kind of problem without huge legal fees, rather than just throwing our hands up in the air and saying "free speech!"
  - rwmj 7y ago
    Used to be terrible. They were reformed[1] in all nations except Northern Ireland, so now NI is the main libel tourism destination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
    - frereubu 7y ago
      Ah, OK. Thanks for the update - good to know.
    - ptaipale 7y ago
      Don't you normally say "countries" (England/Wales, Scotland, NI) instead of "nations"? (Just curious of terminology.)
      - rwmj 7y ago
        I was thinking of the Home Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations) but apparently you're right that they are more normally known as the countries of the United Kingdom.

mytailorisrich 7y ago

In the UK (and I'm thinking in most jurisdictions) being sued for libel is very expensive to defend. Defending criminal charges is also expensive. Neither is similar to the small claims track, which is really only aimed at small and simple money disputes. Anti-"Fake news" laws seem to create a new criminal offence and I thus expect that the costs associated with defending is similar.

frereubu 7y ago
Libel laws in the UK are terrible, so much so that they lead to "libel tourism" where rich people try to sue others in the UK courts because the law is more favourable to the accuser than elsewhere, and as you say it's expensive to defend yourself. My reference to the UK small claims court was simply because it seems like a sensible way of settling differences with as little friction and cost as possible, and I could see that format working to level the playing field between a government and a publisher. It seems unlikely, because that's not usually the way things go, but it would be an interesting way to actually tackle this kind of problem without huge legal fees, rather than just throwing our hands up in the air and saying "free speech!"
- rwmj 7y ago
  Used to be terrible. They were reformed[1] in all nations except Northern Ireland, so now NI is the main libel tourism destination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013
  - frereubu 7y ago
    Ah, OK. Thanks for the update - good to know.
  - ptaipale 7y ago
    Don't you normally say "countries" (England/Wales, Scotland, NI) instead of "nations"? (Just curious of terminology.)
    - rwmj 7y ago
      I was thinking of the Home Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Nations) but apparently you're right that they are more normally known as the countries of the United Kingdom.