4 ms·

Turns out due process was invented for a reason.

ceejayoz 2y ago
British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  Well in the case of defamation the damage has already been done, necessarily. So the defendant is really a prosector, and they are asked for their evidence. See, eg., this case. Also,... > The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > Also,... > The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law Getting this ruling on one of the most heavily documented historical facts in existence cost millions and two years of litigation. That has an obvious chilling effects to alleging misconduct that isn't documented in a few thousand scholarly books.
- afavour 2y ago
  Agreed. I know absolutely nothing about this particular case so I'm not passing judgement on it specifically. But as a British person I've learned over the years (and the endless court cases by football players etc) to pretty much totally disregard the outcome of these kind of cases.
- jsheard 2y ago
  It's a big part of why Jimmy Savile got away with it despite everyone apparently knowing what he was up to, nobody wanted to run the story because they anticipated it would get shot down as libel. The BBC greenlit an investigation into the allegations immediately after he died, they knew full well there was dirt there but they wouldn't touch it until he was in the ground.
- kayodelycaon 2y ago
  I think they have sufficient evidence to win the suit in the US. From the court: The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant.
  - rafram 2y ago
    Most likely not. There are two parts of US case law that would be at issue here, but the key is actual malice [1]. The defendants here believed the claims they were repeating, even if they themselves hadn't seen the evidence. That isn't defamation. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating-a-defamatory-all/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating...
    - f33d5173 2y ago
      "actual malice" means either they knew it was untrue or they published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That would be the test he would attempt to prove they failed.
    - mminer237 2y ago
      Actual malice (which, reckless disregard isn't all that hard to get) it's only required if a person is a public figure. For most people, you only have to show negligence.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- rm_-rf_slash 2y ago
  Counterpoint: when the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, people can lie about terrible things with little to no consequence. I personally have been at the receiving end of some particularly heinous lies by an individual who is unfortunately not getting the mental assistance they need. It was hard enough to secure a restraining order but my lawyer said there was pretty much nothing I could do about the whoppers being blasted over social media. Fortunately nobody believed the crazy person’s crazy lies but if they had I could have been put in a really bad situation.
- nailer 2y ago
  > > British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. > English defamation law... does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. That's not 'notoriously friendly to plaintiffs'. It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism The UK's system required a historian to spend two years and millions defending against a libel claim from calling someone a prominent Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd That's to argue one of the most clearly documented historical facts we have. Allegations - testimony - are evidence. Multiple people alledging something is evidence. Even under US libel law, accusing someone like Cosby or Weinstein of misconduct is risky enough; in the UK, it led to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile being untouchable.
    - nailer 2y ago
      Nothing you have written refutes the item you have quoted. Someone was able to prove that David Irving said the holocaust did not happen, but it did happen, and David Irving lost. Good. The court being slow and expensive is orthogonal and applies across all of law.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        This is the absolute best case scenario - the easiest of wins, on a factual level - and it was still hugely expensive in time and money. (He went bankrupt, too, so they didn't even get to recoup those fees.) If you're one of the kids Jimmy Savile raped, do you think they've got those resources to fight a multi-year court battle with someone who's been covering their tracks successfully for over sixty years? The BBC won't risk talking about it, what hope do you have? Note that once he died and libel suits couldn't be raised any longer, hundreds of victims came out within the year.

British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. For that reason, it has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright.

mjburgess 2y ago
Well in the case of defamation the damage has already been done, necessarily. So the defendant is really a prosector, and they are asked for their evidence. See, eg., this case. Also,... > The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > Also,... > The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law Getting this ruling on one of the most heavily documented historical facts in existence cost millions and two years of litigation. That has an obvious chilling effects to alleging misconduct that isn't documented in a few thousand scholarly books.
afavour 2y ago
Agreed. I know absolutely nothing about this particular case so I'm not passing judgement on it specifically. But as a British person I've learned over the years (and the endless court cases by football players etc) to pretty much totally disregard the outcome of these kind of cases.
jsheard 2y ago
It's a big part of why Jimmy Savile got away with it despite everyone apparently knowing what he was up to, nobody wanted to run the story because they anticipated it would get shot down as libel. The BBC greenlit an investigation into the allegations immediately after he died, they knew full well there was dirt there but they wouldn't touch it until he was in the ground.
kayodelycaon 2y ago
I think they have sufficient evidence to win the suit in the US. From the court: The Defendants accept that they have never had any evidence to support the allegations apart from the two unverified claims published in coordination with the Open Letter. They were never in a position to make any informed judgement on the truth of the allegations, and did not seek clarification on any of the allegations from the Claimant.
- rafram 2y ago
  Most likely not. There are two parts of US case law that would be at issue here, but the key is actual malice [1]. The defendants here believed the claims they were repeating, even if they themselves hadn't seen the evidence. That isn't defamation. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating-a-defamatory-all/ https://reason.com/volokh/2018/11/07/is-accurately-repeating...
  - f33d5173 2y ago
    "actual malice" means either they knew it was untrue or they published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That would be the test he would attempt to prove they failed.
  - mminer237 2y ago
    Actual malice (which, reckless disregard isn't all that hard to get) it's only required if a person is a public figure. For most people, you only have to show negligence.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
rm_-rf_slash 2y ago
Counterpoint: when the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, people can lie about terrible things with little to no consequence. I personally have been at the receiving end of some particularly heinous lies by an individual who is unfortunately not getting the mental assistance they need. It was hard enough to secure a restraining order but my lawyer said there was pretty much nothing I could do about the whoppers being blasted over social media. Fortunately nobody believed the crazy person’s crazy lies but if they had I could have been put in a really bad situation.
nailer 2y ago
> > British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. > English defamation law... does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. That's not 'notoriously friendly to plaintiffs'. It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism The UK's system required a historian to spend two years and millions defending against a libel claim from calling someone a prominent Holocaust denier a Holocaust denier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd That's to argue one of the most clearly documented historical facts we have. Allegations - testimony - are evidence. Multiple people alledging something is evidence. Even under US libel law, accusing someone like Cosby or Weinstein of misconduct is risky enough; in the UK, it led to things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile being untouchable.
  - nailer 2y ago
    Nothing you have written refutes the item you have quoted. Someone was able to prove that David Irving said the holocaust did not happen, but it did happen, and David Irving lost. Good. The court being slow and expensive is orthogonal and applies across all of law.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      This is the absolute best case scenario - the easiest of wins, on a factual level - and it was still hugely expensive in time and money. (He went bankrupt, too, so they didn't even get to recoup those fees.) If you're one of the kids Jimmy Savile raped, do you think they've got those resources to fight a multi-year court battle with someone who's been covering their tracks successfully for over sixty years? The BBC won't risk talking about it, what hope do you have? Note that once he died and libel suits couldn't be raised any longer, hundreds of victims came out within the year.