4 ms·

In England and Wales it is. English courts are notable for requiring the defendant to prove what they said was true. It is common practice for the world’s ric

In England and Wales it is. English courts are notable for requiring the defendant to prove what they said was true. It is common practice for the world’s rich and infamous to take a trip to London whenever they want to chill their critics’ speech: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

ilyt 3y ago
That sounds....reasonable ? Not the tourism part but the fact one comitting suspected libel needs to use actual facts or else they are guilty of it ?
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  It’s not about whether they need to use actual facts, it’s about which side needs to prove whether or not they’re using actual facts.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Why would one suing for slander need to that whatever slanderer invented he didn't do ? That puts unreasonable level of burden on one being slandered (i.e. the victim) and would allow one doing the slander just make up stuff that is very hard to prove that the victim didn't do.
swores 3y ago
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about English libel law, I think a bit too strict but wouldn't want to lose it all - but surely libel tourism just shouldn't be allowed? Is it just too hard to stop without blocking legitimate claims too? edit: I read the rest of that Wikipedia article, seems a decade ago something was done to at least reduce it - "On January 1st, 2014 the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, requiring plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. Serious harm to an individual's reputation or serious financial harm to a corporation must also be proven. Good faith belief that a disclosure was in the public interest was made a defense."
- gorgoiler 3y ago
  I don’t know enough to answer your questions but the McLibel case is another good entry on the subject: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case

ilyt 3y ago

That sounds....reasonable ? Not the tourism part but the fact one comitting suspected libel needs to use actual facts or else they are guilty of it ?

bandyaboot 3y ago
It’s not about whether they need to use actual facts, it’s about which side needs to prove whether or not they’re using actual facts.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Why would one suing for slander need to that whatever slanderer invented he didn't do ? That puts unreasonable level of burden on one being slandered (i.e. the victim) and would allow one doing the slander just make up stuff that is very hard to prove that the victim didn't do.

swores 3y ago

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about English libel law, I think a bit too strict but wouldn't want to lose it all - but surely libel tourism just shouldn't be allowed? Is it just too hard to stop without blocking legitimate claims too? edit: I read the rest of that Wikipedia article, seems a decade ago something was done to at least reduce it - "On January 1st, 2014 the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, requiring plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. Serious harm to an individual's reputation or serious financial harm to a corporation must also be proven. Good faith belief that a disclosure was in the public interest was made a defense."

gorgoiler 3y ago
I don’t know enough to answer your questions but the McLibel case is another good entry on the subject: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case