4 ms·
Innocent until proven guilty?
by gedy 3y ago
Innocent until proven guilty?
- ceejayoz 3y agoUnder English defamation law, libel defendants are actually functionally guilty until proven innocent.
- exe34 3y agoBecause the libel defendants are the ones who have pronounced somebody guilty until..... well there was no due process.
- ceejayoz 3y agoYou think there should be due process required to speak?
- exe34 3y agoDid they merely speak, or did they ban him from a community and made him unemployable?
- ceejayoz 3y agoFundamentally, here's the difference. In the US, getting someone convicted of libel or settling for it is pretty solid proof. It means the person being libeled likely could prove that the person making the claims knew they were false and maliciously spread them anyways. In the UK, it's more akin to an allegation. It provides us substantially less information than a similar proceeding in the US would.
- baryphonic 3y ago> In the US, getting someone convicted of libel or settling for it is pretty solid proof. It means the person being libeled likely could prove that the person making the claims knew they were false and maliciously spread them anyways. Proving actual malice is only a requirement if the plaintiff is a public figure per New York Times v Sullivan. People who are not public figures have a lower burden of proof, though it is still substantially more stringent than in the UK.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> People who are not public figures have a lower burden of proof, though it is still substantially more stringent than in the UK. While state rules for private figures differ, the Constitutional limit (as articulated in Gertz v. Welch) prohibits liability without fault, that is, there must be at least negligence even if the statement is factually false, and also prohibits punitive damages without actual malice. In the UK, defamation is strict liability (there is no fault requirement) in addition to truth being an affirmative defense rather than falsity being an element of the tort.
- baryphonic 3y agoNegligence is a significantly lower standard than actual malice, and presumably a person who has been defamed would be seeking significant actual damages anyway (the sum of lost wages for a SWE following a false SA allegation, for example, would be quite large even in the absence of punitive damages). That's the only point I was making.
- singleshot_ 3y agoThey have a lower burden of proof? Or they have to prove fewer elements?
- dragonwriter 3y agoThey (can) have different, less stringent elements, not fewer (state rules vary, but there can be a less stringent fault element than actual malice, though there must still be fault — defamation cannot be strict liability in the US.)
- nailer 3y ago> In the UK, it's more akin to an allegation. No. It means the libeller couldn't prove what they were saying.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe alleged libeler. Which can mean, sometimes, that the perpetrator is good at covering their tracks and selects victims who can't sustain a prolonged legal and public opinion battle trying to prove their case. They need only allege that someone libeled them to impose significant legal costs on that person, costs that for many are not feasible. You don't get a public defender.
- exe34 3y agoThe "alleged" libellers lost the case though. They apologised and paid costs and damages. I don't think "alleged" applies after you lost the case.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIf you read the document, the allegation that they made false statements remains unproven. They admit only to not being able to support the claims with evidence other than the original allegations. The original source of the accusations that they were supporting in the open letter is also notably not named in the suit. In most court proceedings, it must be positively proven ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in some cases, "by the preponderance of the evidence" in others) that you committed the crime or tort in question. That's a good requirement, and English defamation law is a glaring exception.
- exe34 3y agoSo you believe it's possible that at the time they had evidence to prove the allegations, and thus acted in good faith, and now suddenly they don't have any memory of said evidence? That's an interesting case that I expect we'll be seeing medical papers written about soon!
- exe34 3y agoSo in the US it's easier to make unfounded allegations and ruin somebody's life, and it's on them to prove you knew you were lying?
- ceejayoz 3y agoBoth Weinstein and Cosby provide good examples of where hard evidence was extraordinarily difficult to come by. Much of the evidentiary value comes from the large volume of credible (time, place, access, similar stories, etc.) accusations; those accusations largely required an initial few to be brave enough to come out with their stories for the rest to come forward. The UK's setup permits such abusers to prevent press coverage of these initial victims, and to significantly chill the climate for subsequent accusers. Both setups have their upsides and downsides, but I'm less a fan of the one that lets serial predators evolve their strategies to be more and more immune from consequence.
- dragonwriter 3y agoIn the UK, you can be held liable for stating a reasonable conclusion based on the facts available to you after reasonable investigation that turns out to be (viewed by a court as) false, while in the US there must in any defamation case be some degree of fault as well as falsity.
- whaleofatw2022 3y agoTwo button meme: - Actions have consequences - I can say things that may break a law in my country without consequences.
- ceejayoz 3y agoIf you think that any consequence is acceptable, sure. Death penalty for littering, for example, can be opposed even by those who feel it should be punished in some way.