5 ms·
Britain's scariest libel firm
- livueta 3y agohttps://archive.vn/DAjWT https://archive.vn/DAjWT
- neonate 3y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20231202012013/https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/01/britains-scariest-libel-firm-can-pursue-anyone-anywhere https://web.archive.org/web/20231202012013/https://www.econo...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ianbicking 3y agoHas Britain learned anything from Jimmy Savile (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile) or have they just accepted this is how it will be? Because their libel laws feel like an important part of how something like that stays covered up. Or are they even allowed to have a serious conversation about it given those very libel laws?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- defrost 3y agoIn theory (and this is a complex layered subject with many pros and cons that would easily occupy a book) British libel law forces a serious conversation as to firmly allege that Jimmy Saville fiddles children would require hard proof that Jimmy Saville fiddles children. ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts. On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court. Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.
- InCityDreams 3y ago...allegedly.
- kevinventullo 3y agoLibel laws are an important defensive weapon against those would threaten the sanctity of the monarchy with claims that the royal family is anything but flawless and worthy of worship.
- gerdesj 3y ago[flagged]
- mcpackieh 3y ago> What on earth are you on about? The UK's libel laws scared off journalists who wanted to blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile-escaped-justice-because-of-libel-laws-claims-reporter https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile... https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story-dropped-sunday-mirror-because-paper-could-not-afford-lose-libel-battle/ https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story... Your comment is completely out of line and violates the commenting guidelines. Are you trying to be ironic or something?
- eschaton 3y agoThe poster you’re replying to appears to mount a some degree of defense of UK law in response to several comments here, though they also use a disparaging name for one of the prominent law firms. It’s hard to tell just what their point is, except to say “You need to understand more to properly criticize UK law, so keep your mouth shut.” Which, no, we don’t, and we won’t. The effects of UK libel and slander law have been long discussed and demonstrated, so much so that there is a US federal law whose explicit purpose is to enjoin enforcement of UK libel and slander law in US jurisdictions.
- mcpackieh 3y agoIf they've learned anything, they haven't put those lessons into practice. Wealthy abusers continue to use the UK's accuser-biased libel laws to silence those who speak out (falsely accusing them of libel in a system that is rigged against the little guys.)
- yreg 3y agoWhat does 'pursue' mean here? Everybody can write an angry letter to 'anyone, anywhere'. Can Carter-Ruck actually force 'anyone, anywhere' to cease & desist / defend themselves at court? What stops a resident of say Hong Kong or Russia or Paraguay from totally ignoring said angry letter?
- boznz 3y agoNot a lawyer and happy to be corrected but my wild ass guess says that unless you are breaking a law of your country they cannot do anything.
- Laaas 3y agoIt would mean you can't go to the UK I imagine.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- porknubbins 3y agoIts a little bit more complicated since we aren’t talking about a criminal offense so its not you vs your country. Its more like does the person who you allegedly libeled have standing to sue you in a court which has jurisdiction over you/your assets. If that person legitimately has some presence in your country they might.
- gerdesj 3y agoThis lot are Carter Fuck (the Private Eye approved name for C-R). They know rather a lot about the laws in most jurisdictions and obviously ours (UK, well actually England and Wales). There is nothing that stops, say a Russian from ignoring an English Law firm but they might find a local "issue" turns up from a local law firm, prompted from over here. It will be meticulously researched and couched in local legal terms. You might like to note that recently a judge in the Russian Federation has declared that a group called "international LGBT public movement" is now outlawed. That group does not really exist per se but it is now a label that can be applied to someone. There are penalties in law from being associated with that group/moniker. I imagine that any responsible person can assert that someone is a member of that (fictional) group and expect justice to be done. Do I really have to spell out how this goes down? Russia at least declares their "issues". Some other jurisdictions don't bother with those ... niceties.
- preinheimer 3y agoSomething I appreciated from The Economist was this bit > It seemed legitimate to her (an impression aided by the fact that its co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, had addressed a conference organised by The Economist) Admitting their own role in this saga was nice.
- HarryHirsch 3y ago« Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaîtra les siens »
- cafard 3y ago"(Truth is always an absolute defence in libel cases.)" In US law, yes. But I thought that was not so under English law. "Mansfield said it, it's true as the Bible/The greater the truth, the greater the libel." was an old summary.
- fargle 3y agoOh, it's an absolute defense in British law too. But the burden of proof is on the defendant. All you have to do is "prove it" in court...
- TillE 3y agoOver the years, I've come to the strong view that America's free speech protections - more or less unique in the world - are by far the best model. Plenty of other countries gesture at the idea of free expression, even in their constitutions, but in practice it doesn't exist. It becomes illegal to "defame" (or even just "insult") someone by merely expressing an opinion, not making a factually defamatory claim. It's an awful way to run a democratic society. I mean, I could name a bunch of American political podcasts which would have been sued out of existence by the powerful people they joke about in any other country.
- hot_gril 3y agoYes, and this is especially relevant recently. Free speech laws can't be simply bolted on when needed. Also: "British libel law retains something of its aristocratic origins: the person claiming to have been defamed is the one presumed to be telling the truth, unlike in the legal traditions of continental Europe and America." I wonder how true this is about the UK, sounds messed up.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thsksbd 3y agoBy far the best in the world. Chomsky is quite open that the US is the only country in the world where he can be as critical of the sovereign as he is. Frankly it's a big reason I finally decided to become American.
- init2null 3y agoSatire and opinion manages to express itself even in the UK. Give the show "Have I Got News for You" a watch before you assume that freedom of expression is completely dead there. That being said, I'm sure it's tough to feel safe unless you can afford good representation.
- hot_gril 3y agoBut is the satire unpopular or against someone powerful? Btw, I did look the show up, and funny enough first thing I see is a £10,000 fine for a joke they made a long time ago.
- xoa 3y agoKinda surprised and disappointed given the expansive title ("Britain’s scariest libel firm can pursue anyone, anywhere") that it failed to mention any of the laws taken against this sort of business by other countries, with the textbook example being America's SPEECH Act of 2010 [0]. That law makes any foreign defamation claim unenforceable in the US unless it meets the standards of the First Amendment, regardless of the laws anywhere else in the world. Foreigners with lesser free speech protections can pound sand. We could do better with a strong federal anti-SLAPP law, currently how expensive and invasive anti-speech lawsuits are varies wildly more by what state one is resident in then it should. Nevertheless the protections are still quite solid, and I didn't see in the article something to justify the lede. That's not to say the abysmal state of defamation practice in the UK isn't still painful, but it doesn't mean they have total global reach either. ---- 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
- gerdesj 3y ago[flagged]
- thsksbd 3y agoHowever, if you don't hire an expensive lawyer in the UK you'll loose to a default judgement. Then your trips to Europe become very difficult since you have to avoid a layover in Heathrow. On top of that, if the firm is aggressive enough, they can pursue you or your assets in other countries w/out a SPEECH act. Then, even if eventually thrown out, you have to deal with that.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y agoSorry, what are they going to do to you on a layover in Heathrow, surely even if you enter the UK they won't arrest you due to a default judgement in a civil case? They can not be that far gone.
- nullc 3y agoNot due to the default judgement itself, but due to the finding of contempt that comes when you don't comply with the order that came with the judgement.
- AlbertCory 3y ago> London’s top libel lawyers command rates of more than £500 per hour. Losers. This guy bills at €1000 / hour. https://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/grosch-dr-marcus/ https://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/grosch-dr-marcus/
- willyt 3y agoI would be surprised if it was that low. I used a random HR law specialist in a regional UK city and they were charging £350. I’ve heard £1500+
- AlbertCory 3y agoidk. I happen to have met Marcus, the only reason I noticed this story.
- eviks 3y ago> In the 16th century an additional crime of seditious libel was introduced – statements intended to incite rebellion against a state or monarch. This was punishable by the removal of the offender’s hand. An offence of slander entailed the removal of one’s ears. > Few would argue that libel law shouldn’t exist. Well, maybe more people should argue that, after all, mostly the other few benefit from all this huge power imbalance of being able to chop someone's hand off (or do the modern financial ruin alternative)
- drumhead 3y agoMy understanding of the strength of British Libel laws is due to them being used to eliminate dueling which was quite prevelant amongst the officer classes in the British Army. They took two measures. One was to ban the military pension of an officer killed in a duel going to their wife, the other was tough libel laws that enabled matters of honour to be settled in a court rather than through a duel. Both of these measures combined to virtually eliminate dueling.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoPart of it was probably a wider historical shift as well. Early in American history dueling was a problem too. Alexander Hamilton might have been a president if he hadn’t felt compelled to dual and lost.
- ericfrazier 3y agoAnd judgement proof people can go about their day doing what they like as always because they don't have any assets to be sued for.