5 ms·

Fun fact: in the UK the title of this post is a probable libel. HN repeating it is also a probable libel. Maybe the word "allegedly" should go in there? Just a

by hkt 5y ago

Fun fact: in the UK the title of this post is a probable libel. HN repeating it is also a probable libel. Maybe the word "allegedly" should go in there? Just a thought. Edit: OK, some people clearly didn't like the tone I struck, so I'll be much clearer and make no attempt at humour. The subjects of this case are all in the UK. If the allegations can't be proven to be true on the balance of probabilities, and a case for libel against these women is brought by de Grey, their lives will be wrecked in proportion to the spread of this article. HN is technically repeating that libel but the main concern I have here is that some people have miscalculated and their lives, careers and credibility would be wrecked by a case against them. The damage in a case like this would be calculated on how many peoples opinions of de Grey were lowered. By not presenting a balanced view in the link title, HN would make life much worse for the people making these allegations than if the word "allegedly" were being used. I'll be interested to learn whether we value a concerned FYI about the law more or less than speculating.

ceejayoz 5y ago
The UK's libel laws are bad, and thankfully don't apply outside their borders. For an example of why, it took multiple years, millions of dollars, and a 349 page judicial decision to uphold calling someone a holocaust denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd
- forgingahead 5y ago
  What? If someone published a blog post titled "ceejayoz is a <SERIOUS ACCUSATION>", you would be well within your rights to sue for libel if the claim was not true. There is nothing "bad" about that law, it's the best way to defend yourself against sensationalism and fake news.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    In the US, there is an assumption of innocence; the person asserting libel must prove it. In the UK, the burden of proof is switched; the accused must prove their statement was truthful, which means an expensive legal battle. If you're a well-off asshole, you can leverage this in very nasty ways.
- hkt 5y ago
  No doubt they're bad. But the case appears to involve multiple people in the UK.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    One of the claims in the parent comment was "HN repeating it is also a probable libel", which... no.
Simon_says 5y ago
Ycombinator is not in the UK.
- hkt 5y ago
  The parties to this exchange are all subject to UK law, as I understand it. The title here has legal implications for them if that's the case: the reach of a libel is factored into damages calculations. That means this post is likely to cause someone a real headache if the title is not changed.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Fun fact: in the UK the title of this post is a probable libel Even in the UK, true allegations aren't libel, though in the UK I believe truth is a defense rather than falsity being an element of the prima facie case.
CRConrad 5y ago
> The damage in a case like this would be calculated on how many peoples opinions of de Grey were lowered. If you didn't have a prior opinion of the guy because you'd never heard of him before -- like me (unless I'd heard of him but forgot) -- your (my) opinion of him technically can't be "lowered". But getting to hear of him for the first time in a context like this certainly gives one a bad first impression of him... So, does that count? Because in that case I suppose there could be quite a lot of opinions like mine, not lowered but set initially low, out there affected by this.

by hkt 5y ago

ceejayoz 5y ago

The UK's libel laws are bad, and thankfully don't apply outside their borders. For an example of why, it took multiple years, millions of dollars, and a 349 page judicial decision to uphold calling someone a holocaust denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd

forgingahead 5y ago
What? If someone published a blog post titled "ceejayoz is a <SERIOUS ACCUSATION>", you would be well within your rights to sue for libel if the claim was not true. There is nothing "bad" about that law, it's the best way to defend yourself against sensationalism and fake news.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  In the US, there is an assumption of innocence; the person asserting libel must prove it. In the UK, the burden of proof is switched; the accused must prove their statement was truthful, which means an expensive legal battle. If you're a well-off asshole, you can leverage this in very nasty ways.
hkt 5y ago
No doubt they're bad. But the case appears to involve multiple people in the UK.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  One of the claims in the parent comment was "HN repeating it is also a probable libel", which... no.

Simon_says 5y ago

Ycombinator is not in the UK.

hkt 5y ago
The parties to this exchange are all subject to UK law, as I understand it. The title here has legal implications for them if that's the case: the reach of a libel is factored into damages calculations. That means this post is likely to cause someone a real headache if the title is not changed.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Fun fact: in the UK the title of this post is a probable libel Even in the UK, true allegations aren't libel, though in the UK I believe truth is a defense rather than falsity being an element of the prima facie case.

CRConrad 5y ago

> The damage in a case like this would be calculated on how many peoples opinions of de Grey were lowered. If you didn't have a prior opinion of the guy because you'd never heard of him before -- like me (unless I'd heard of him but forgot) -- your (my) opinion of him technically can't be "lowered". But getting to hear of him for the first time in a context like this certainly gives one a bad first impression of him... So, does that count? Because in that case I suppose there could be quite a lot of opinions like mine, not lowered but set initially low, out there affected by this.