5 ms·

It's also worth noting that UK libel laws are considerably more liberal than the US libel laws. A statement that would be fine in the US could result in a life-

by dhosek 6y ago

It's also worth noting that UK libel laws are considerably more liberal than the US libel laws. A statement that would be fine in the US could result in a life-shattering judgment in the UK.

cyberpunk 6y ago
Do you mean more conservative?
- wayneftw 6y ago
  Conservative would be less use of law and government, liberal would be more.
  - cyberpunk 6y ago
    Ah you mean liberal as in amount, not liberal as in more permissive. That was confusing, cheers.
  - quietbritishjim 6y ago
    > liberal would be more [use of law and government] That is not what liberal means. In fact the confusing setence in your previous comment has basically the opposite meaning than you meant: more liberal libel laws would be less strict.
    - wayneftw 6y ago
      It wasn't my comment, but there is more than one meaning for the word liberal. [0] I was going with adjective 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. I took "more liberal" to mean "more left" as in the political spectrum of Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative because that's the only definition that really fits the context of the sentence... Despite the fact that Liberalism has much more to do with Liberty than liberal use of government, Liberals today certainly want to use the government liberally to make new laws for solving any small discomfort. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+liberal https://www.google.com/search?q=define+liberal
      - quietbritishjim 6y ago
        Maybe there's partly a cultural difference. Here in the UK, "liberal" mean would still greater freedom of speech even if you meant "liberal" in the political sense. Ironically that's probably one of the core tenants of political liberalism! By the way, the most liberal party here is in the centre politically, so it's very clear here that liberalness is not determined at all by left-rightness. I don't claim to know as much about the difference between Republicans and Democrats as Americans themselves, but I find it very surprising to think that Democrats would oppose freedom of speech particularly more strongly - I'd actually presume it to be the other way round (maybe based on my own conflation of "liberal" in the US sense and in the original political sense). With all that said, the way the original commenter referred to liberal as simply meaning "more ... use of law" is pretty hard for me to take seriously. Is apartheid more liberal than racial equality because it requires more laws? Come on. It comes off as an attempt to slander (ironically!) liberalism by claiming any bad law is liberal because liberalism uses laws.
        wayneftw 6y ago
        In the US, Democrats/left/liberals are well known for trying to control speech. [0] [1] [2] They are the party of greater government and using law more liberally to control more aspects of society. Republicans/right/conservatives are the party of small government - hence the word conservative describing them. They favor free markets, which is to say: Don't make too many laws getting in the way of business! The very meaning of the word Conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation." [3] Less change = less laws. The conservative right weren't the ones behind the Civil Rights movement in the US - that was the liberal left, creating more laws controlling things like school segregation and so forth. So, I think you can see that "more (vs less) use of law" is absolutely one of the overarching themes at play in our political scene. Even as a complete layman who actively avoids politics I wasn't able to avoid this knowledge. I think you can confirm it with a few quick searches to get a feel for what kinds of things people have said about either party [4] [5] [6]. [0] https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-... [1] https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-supports-a-constitutional-amendment-that-would-radically-curtail-freedom-of-speech/ https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-s... [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-id... [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conservatism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conservatism [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+against+freedom+of+speech https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+against+freedom+of... [5] https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+to+control+everything https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+to+control+ev... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+want+to+control+everything https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+want+to+control+...
    - jokethrowaway 6y ago
      While that's true (and I agree with your definition in the context, which is not political), the root of the misunderstanding is modern liberalism stealing the word from what is now known as classical liberalism
      - quietbritishjim 6y ago
        Even if I interpret it in a polical way, I would still take "more liberal" to mean "supports greater freedom of speech"; that's consistent with what you call classical liberalism. I hadn't heard of this "modern liberalism" until now, which seems to be an American term. But looking at the Wikipedia article [1] it doesn't seem to involve much discussion either way about freedom of speech, except to do with donations by corporations (it seems a stretch to connect that with willingness to legislate about libel). If anything, the other parts of that article still have a strong enough similarity to classical liberal principles that I would expect an American "modern" liberal to still be in favour of free speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#Free_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_Unite...
buro9 6y ago
UK laws changed a while ago, and now you have to prove damages. I find it hard to believe that the damages proven could be attributed back to TrustPilot as I just don't believe that a significant % of people are checking TrustPilot before hiring a lawyer.
- pacaro 6y ago
  The defendant wasn't present, so the plaintiff's assertions about damages will presumably have been taken at face value. IANAL
  - evgen 6y ago
    If you read the actual case it turns out that the judge did not allow one of the two damages claims, so it was not just a case of whatever the plaintiff wanted they received.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  Here's what the judgment has to say about damages: "Mr Bradshaw submitted that the gravity of the Defendant's libel is at least as serious as that in Monroe, and is comparable with that in Doyle. Accordingly, general damages award of £24,000 to £30,000 would be appropriate, subject to his concession that the claim was limited to £25,000. In respect of special damages which were claimed at £300 per day, Mr Bradshaw submitted that on the basis of Ms Rhode's evidence there had been a significant reduction in enquires for a period of at least 6 weeks which would equate at £300 per day to a sum of £12,600. In my judgment the claim for special damages is not made out. Ms Rhodes evidence is simply not directed to this point and no detailed financial or accounting evidence has been provided. Whilst I accept the Defendant has chosen not to appear and contest the figure the burden remains on the Claimant to prove its loss. I am however satisfied that reduction in the number of instructions was caused by the defamatory review and has caused the Claimant some financial loss. As Mr Justice Warby said in the case of Brett Wilson LLP v Persons unknown, responsible for the Operation and Publication of the website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com [2015] EWHC 2628 [29] the loss of a single instruction can cost a firm tens of thousands of pounds (and in some instances more). In the circumstances I am satisfied that an award of general damages in the sum of £25,000 would adequately reflect the seriousness of the defamation, the financial loss which has occurred and the purpose of vindication."
willyt 6y ago
But on the other hand we dont have punitive damages in civil law for anything. Generally, you can’t be sued for a randomly large amount of money like you can in the US. It has to be provable and direct costs of, in this case, lost business. This is probably why the judgement was for quite a small amount of money, considering how much a law firm turns over in a year. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer or your lawyer so there may be edge cases that I don’t know about.

by dhosek 6y ago

It's also worth noting that UK libel laws are considerably more liberal than the US libel laws. A statement that would be fine in the US could result in a life-shattering judgment in the UK.

cyberpunk 6y ago

Do you mean more conservative?

wayneftw 6y ago
Conservative would be less use of law and government, liberal would be more.
- cyberpunk 6y ago
  Ah you mean liberal as in amount, not liberal as in more permissive. That was confusing, cheers.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  > liberal would be more [use of law and government] That is not what liberal means. In fact the confusing setence in your previous comment has basically the opposite meaning than you meant: more liberal libel laws would be less strict.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    It wasn't my comment, but there is more than one meaning for the word liberal. [0] I was going with adjective 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. I took "more liberal" to mean "more left" as in the political spectrum of Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative because that's the only definition that really fits the context of the sentence... Despite the fact that Liberalism has much more to do with Liberty than liberal use of government, Liberals today certainly want to use the government liberally to make new laws for solving any small discomfort. [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+liberal https://www.google.com/search?q=define+liberal
    - quietbritishjim 6y ago
      Maybe there's partly a cultural difference. Here in the UK, "liberal" mean would still greater freedom of speech even if you meant "liberal" in the political sense. Ironically that's probably one of the core tenants of political liberalism! By the way, the most liberal party here is in the centre politically, so it's very clear here that liberalness is not determined at all by left-rightness. I don't claim to know as much about the difference between Republicans and Democrats as Americans themselves, but I find it very surprising to think that Democrats would oppose freedom of speech particularly more strongly - I'd actually presume it to be the other way round (maybe based on my own conflation of "liberal" in the US sense and in the original political sense). With all that said, the way the original commenter referred to liberal as simply meaning "more ... use of law" is pretty hard for me to take seriously. Is apartheid more liberal than racial equality because it requires more laws? Come on. It comes off as an attempt to slander (ironically!) liberalism by claiming any bad law is liberal because liberalism uses laws.
      - wayneftw 6y ago
        In the US, Democrats/left/liberals are well known for trying to control speech. [0] [1] [2] They are the party of greater government and using law more liberally to control more aspects of society. Republicans/right/conservatives are the party of small government - hence the word conservative describing them. They favor free markets, which is to say: Don't make too many laws getting in the way of business! The very meaning of the word Conservatism is "commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation." [3] Less change = less laws. The conservative right weren't the ones behind the Civil Rights movement in the US - that was the liberal left, creating more laws controlling things like school segregation and so forth. So, I think you can see that "more (vs less) use of law" is absolutely one of the overarching themes at play in our political scene. Even as a complete layman who actively avoids politics I wasn't able to avoid this knowledge. I think you can confirm it with a few quick searches to get a feel for what kinds of things people have said about either party [4] [5] [6]. [0] https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-first-amendment https://www.americancommitment.org/content/democrats-repeal-... [1] https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-supports-a-constitutional-amendment-that-would-radically-curtail-freedom-of-speech/ https://reason.com/2019/08/12/every-democrat-in-the-senate-s... [2] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-id... [3] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conservatism https://www.google.com/search?q=define+conservatism [4] https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+against+freedom+of+speech https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+against+freedom+of... [5] https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+to+control+everything https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+to+control+ev... [6] https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+want+to+control+everything https://www.google.com/search?q=republicans+want+to+control+...
  - jokethrowaway 6y ago
    While that's true (and I agree with your definition in the context, which is not political), the root of the misunderstanding is modern liberalism stealing the word from what is now known as classical liberalism
    - quietbritishjim 6y ago
      Even if I interpret it in a polical way, I would still take "more liberal" to mean "supports greater freedom of speech"; that's consistent with what you call classical liberalism. I hadn't heard of this "modern liberalism" until now, which seems to be an American term. But looking at the Wikipedia article [1] it doesn't seem to involve much discussion either way about freedom of speech, except to do with donations by corporations (it seems a stretch to connect that with willingness to legislate about libel). If anything, the other parts of that article still have a strong enough similarity to classical liberal principles that I would expect an American "modern" liberal to still be in favour of free speech. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#Free_speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_Unite...

buro9 6y ago

UK laws changed a while ago, and now you have to prove damages. I find it hard to believe that the damages proven could be attributed back to TrustPilot as I just don't believe that a significant % of people are checking TrustPilot before hiring a lawyer.

pacaro 6y ago
The defendant wasn't present, so the plaintiff's assertions about damages will presumably have been taken at face value. IANAL
- evgen 6y ago
  If you read the actual case it turns out that the judge did not allow one of the two damages claims, so it was not just a case of whatever the plaintiff wanted they received.
M2Ys4U 6y ago
Here's what the judgment has to say about damages: "Mr Bradshaw submitted that the gravity of the Defendant's libel is at least as serious as that in Monroe, and is comparable with that in Doyle. Accordingly, general damages award of £24,000 to £30,000 would be appropriate, subject to his concession that the claim was limited to £25,000. In respect of special damages which were claimed at £300 per day, Mr Bradshaw submitted that on the basis of Ms Rhode's evidence there had been a significant reduction in enquires for a period of at least 6 weeks which would equate at £300 per day to a sum of £12,600. In my judgment the claim for special damages is not made out. Ms Rhodes evidence is simply not directed to this point and no detailed financial or accounting evidence has been provided. Whilst I accept the Defendant has chosen not to appear and contest the figure the burden remains on the Claimant to prove its loss. I am however satisfied that reduction in the number of instructions was caused by the defamatory review and has caused the Claimant some financial loss. As Mr Justice Warby said in the case of Brett Wilson LLP v Persons unknown, responsible for the Operation and Publication of the website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com [2015] EWHC 2628 [29] the loss of a single instruction can cost a firm tens of thousands of pounds (and in some instances more). In the circumstances I am satisfied that an award of general damages in the sum of £25,000 would adequately reflect the seriousness of the defamation, the financial loss which has occurred and the purpose of vindication."

willyt 6y ago

But on the other hand we dont have punitive damages in civil law for anything. Generally, you can’t be sued for a randomly large amount of money like you can in the US. It has to be provable and direct costs of, in this case, lost business. This is probably why the judgement was for quite a small amount of money, considering how much a law firm turns over in a year. Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer or your lawyer so there may be edge cases that I don’t know about.