4 ms·

"English libel defendants must prove that each statement is true" is one of those sentences that rock you for a moment and remind you that you really can't pret

"English libel defendants must prove that each statement is true" is one of those sentences that rock you for a moment and remind you that you really can't pretend that all Western Democracies are basically the same.

hjb 6y ago
Yup, to the extent that the US decided that it needed to ensure that UK libel law could not be enforced against US writers: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211
lidHanteyk 6y ago
Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  > even if all statements are already known true to the court Can you expand on what that means? In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false and is therefore entitled to a hearing?
  - filoleg 6y ago
    > Can you expand on what that means? Not OP, but the way I understood it was that the court already holds hard evidence confirming the statements to be undoubtedly true.
  - jldugger 6y ago
    I believe the point OP is making is that you can be accused of libel for speaking the truth.
    - techbio 6y ago
      I think you mean convicted, anyone can be accused of anything at any time.
rwmj 6y ago
This changed with the 2013 Defamation Act, although not in Northern Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html
- Causality1 6y ago
  Not really. It made it harder to sue for defamation and easier to defend but it still doesn't remove the burden of proof from the defendant.
makomk 6y ago
Hence this quote from media coverage at the time: "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people." English libel law already had quite the reputation even by the time of this case.

hjb 6y ago

Yup, to the extent that the US decided that it needed to ensure that UK libel law could not be enforced against US writers: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-10940211

lidHanteyk 6y ago

Yes. Worse, as I understand it, public figures may have lawful claims for defamation even if all statements are already known true to the court! This is a mind-boggling situation, and helps contextualize why the United Nations Human Rights Committee recommends that libel and slander be decriminalized. It makes the USA's defamation laws, SLAPP-happy as they are, look positively humane by comparison.

crazygringo 6y ago
> even if all statements are already known true to the court Can you expand on what that means? In my understanding, courts don't presumptively "already know" anything at all, except law and precedent. The whole point of a suit is that two parties are contesting knowledge, interpretation, or law. Even if a court's judge(s) suppose(s) something to be true, isn't the whole point that the defendent claims it to be false and is therefore entitled to a hearing?
- filoleg 6y ago
  > Can you expand on what that means? Not OP, but the way I understood it was that the court already holds hard evidence confirming the statements to be undoubtedly true.
- jldugger 6y ago
  I believe the point OP is making is that you can be accused of libel for speaking the truth.
  - techbio 6y ago
    I think you mean convicted, anyone can be accused of anything at any time.

rwmj 6y ago

This changed with the 2013 Defamation Act, although not in Northern Ireland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013 https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/defamation.html

Causality1 6y ago
Not really. It made it harder to sue for defamation and easier to defend but it still doesn't remove the burden of proof from the defendant.

makomk 6y ago

Hence this quote from media coverage at the time: "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people." English libel law already had quite the reputation even by the time of this case.