3 ms·

Kinda surprised and disappointed given the expansive title ("Britain’s scariest libel firm can pursue anyone, anywhere") that it failed to mention any of the la

by xoa 3y ago

Kinda 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 ago
However, 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 ago
  Sorry, 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 ago
    Not 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.
    - nullc 3y ago
      FWIW, Although I haven't been the the UK in decades and have no connection there I'm a target of two UK lawsuits alleging hundreds of billions of dollars in damages on basis that would be difficult to impossible to domesticate where I reside. I had to make the difficult decision either to ignore them and potentially risk arrest if I found myself in the UK and risk my assets being seized if they ever ended up under control of a UK exposed entity (perhaps due to an instution I use being acquired by a UK entity), or to fight back and expose myself to legal costs which could be ruinous even in the (likely) case that I win, creating a serious risk that I could lose by virtue of running out of funds. (A situation the claimant has even bragged publicly that he intended to create). Fortunately there was charitable support able to cover the legal costs, which made the decision somewhat easier but nothing will ever compensate me for the astronomical amount of my time the litigation has taken up and the stress its subjected me to. The SPEECH act is a big improvement over the prior situation, but unfortunately the ability to abuse the UK for SLAPP isn't limited to libel lawsuits. I think we need a generalization of the SPEECH act that bars the enforcement (and turns obtaining a judgement into a domestic tort) of foreign judgements in jurisdictions that don't have comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections. But even with that there remain fundamental challenges. As a victim of malicious litigation I'd like it if the courts better regarded bringing false litigation as a tort and had more facilities to require the claimant to post security for not just cost but for substantial damages in case their claim is found to be false. But policy like that would dramatically reduce access to justice especially for parties with limited means. You're not going to sue big-bad who genuinely harmed you if losing means paying huge damages, especially if you'd have to post security for it. There is probably no complete solution to using the courts abusively. We're fortunate to live in mature civilizations that are stable and safe enough to give us an illusion that the universe is somehow fundamentally fair. But it isn't: nature is red in tooth and claw though we try to hide it. Sometimes a bad person can harm you and yours gravely and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except try to pick up the pieces and move on. This is obviously true when you consider attack with a gun or a knife (nothing can undo a death or serious injury), but anything can be a weapon if you're creative enough-- including a court. But that doesn't mean we can't try to do better.
- trevyn 3y ago
  Um, there are plenty of direct flights from the US to continental Europe.
  - thsksbd 3y ago
    ... obviously. And a lot of flights that do stop in the UK. The point is you lose the flexibility and you have to make sure every time you book a flight Not to mention that you are always anxious you don't have an inflight incident. Bad weather, medical emergency (there are 300 people aboard), mechanical issues, etc
- fmajid 3y ago
  The EU is working on an EU-wide SLAPP directive that will shield you from this and allow you to reclaim costs incurred elsewhere (clearly with England in mind). https://archive.ph/Mlzp7 https://archive.ph/Mlzp7 In many respects, England (and Wales, but not Scotland) is still run for the benefit of the feudal aristocracy, parasites descended from thugs. No property taxes (only stamp duty on transfers the feudal never incur), the archaic practice of leasehold even Tories admit is feudal, or the numerous tax breaks accorded the monarchy.
- Y_Y 3y ago
  Wasn't everyone already avoiding layovers in Heathrow? There are plenty of direct flights to European countries and connecting in Dublin or Amsterdam or Madrid is fine.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Amsterdam maybe but Dublin doesn't have that many connections. Heathrow on the other hand has loads.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

by xoa 3y ago

gerdesj 3y ago

[flagged]

thsksbd 3y ago

However, 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 ago
Sorry, 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 ago
  Not 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.
  - nullc 3y ago
    FWIW, Although I haven't been the the UK in decades and have no connection there I'm a target of two UK lawsuits alleging hundreds of billions of dollars in damages on basis that would be difficult to impossible to domesticate where I reside. I had to make the difficult decision either to ignore them and potentially risk arrest if I found myself in the UK and risk my assets being seized if they ever ended up under control of a UK exposed entity (perhaps due to an instution I use being acquired by a UK entity), or to fight back and expose myself to legal costs which could be ruinous even in the (likely) case that I win, creating a serious risk that I could lose by virtue of running out of funds. (A situation the claimant has even bragged publicly that he intended to create). Fortunately there was charitable support able to cover the legal costs, which made the decision somewhat easier but nothing will ever compensate me for the astronomical amount of my time the litigation has taken up and the stress its subjected me to. The SPEECH act is a big improvement over the prior situation, but unfortunately the ability to abuse the UK for SLAPP isn't limited to libel lawsuits. I think we need a generalization of the SPEECH act that bars the enforcement (and turns obtaining a judgement into a domestic tort) of foreign judgements in jurisdictions that don't have comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections. But even with that there remain fundamental challenges. As a victim of malicious litigation I'd like it if the courts better regarded bringing false litigation as a tort and had more facilities to require the claimant to post security for not just cost but for substantial damages in case their claim is found to be false. But policy like that would dramatically reduce access to justice especially for parties with limited means. You're not going to sue big-bad who genuinely harmed you if losing means paying huge damages, especially if you'd have to post security for it. There is probably no complete solution to using the courts abusively. We're fortunate to live in mature civilizations that are stable and safe enough to give us an illusion that the universe is somehow fundamentally fair. But it isn't: nature is red in tooth and claw though we try to hide it. Sometimes a bad person can harm you and yours gravely and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except try to pick up the pieces and move on. This is obviously true when you consider attack with a gun or a knife (nothing can undo a death or serious injury), but anything can be a weapon if you're creative enough-- including a court. But that doesn't mean we can't try to do better.
trevyn 3y ago
Um, there are plenty of direct flights from the US to continental Europe.
- thsksbd 3y ago
  ... obviously. And a lot of flights that do stop in the UK. The point is you lose the flexibility and you have to make sure every time you book a flight Not to mention that you are always anxious you don't have an inflight incident. Bad weather, medical emergency (there are 300 people aboard), mechanical issues, etc
fmajid 3y ago
The EU is working on an EU-wide SLAPP directive that will shield you from this and allow you to reclaim costs incurred elsewhere (clearly with England in mind). https://archive.ph/Mlzp7 https://archive.ph/Mlzp7 In many respects, England (and Wales, but not Scotland) is still run for the benefit of the feudal aristocracy, parasites descended from thugs. No property taxes (only stamp duty on transfers the feudal never incur), the archaic practice of leasehold even Tories admit is feudal, or the numerous tax breaks accorded the monarchy.
Y_Y 3y ago
Wasn't everyone already avoiding layovers in Heathrow? There are plenty of direct flights to European countries and connecting in Dublin or Amsterdam or Madrid is fine.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Amsterdam maybe but Dublin doesn't have that many connections. Heathrow on the other hand has loads.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]