3 ms·

> > British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs. > English defamation law... does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood. That's not 'n

by nailer 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.
TheCoelacanth 3y ago
It is completely unreasonable that you are not allowed to speak factually about events that you personally experienced simply because you are not able to conclusively prove that they happened.

by nailer 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y 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 3y 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 3y 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.

TheCoelacanth 3y ago

It is completely unreasonable that you are not allowed to speak factually about events that you personally experienced simply because you are not able to conclusively prove that they happened.