4 ms·

> In the UK, it's more akin to an allegation. No. It means the libeller couldn't prove what they were saying.

by nailer 3y ago

ceejayoz 3y ago
The 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 ago
  The "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 ago
    If 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 ago
      So 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!
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        The claims in https://scala-open-letter.github.io/ https://scala-open-letter.github.io/ are that the signers "have become aware" "based on multiple, independent, well-substantiated reports showing a systematic pattern of behavior over an extended period" of harrassment, and links those very multiple, independent reports (of which the second is indeed a substantiation of the first). It's hard to see how any of this is false under the US standards. In the UK, though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > everyone involved in the dissemination of the defamation is liable as having published it (That wouldn't fly here; retweeting a false claim, barring unusual circumstances, tends not to be actionable.) The actual allegations weren't litigated in this case, it's a settlement, and I don't doubt it made more sense to say "sorry" and pay £5k/person than to spend years in court litigating a crime that is typically done in a way that leaves little physical evidence that someone else asserted happened. Even when you win, you lose! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd Millions in legal fees, two years spent proving the case, and he declares bankruptcy when fees are awarded.
        tristor 3y ago
        > It's hard to see how any of this is false under the US standards. You are taking their claims at face value. It doesn't matter what standards you apply other than truthfulness, and these claims could still be false. There's no substantiation provided, merely the claim that such exists. A court case in the US would still require them to provide that substantiation, otherwise their claims could be considered libel. While the libel laws in the US and UK differ, it is not legal either in the US to defame someone either knowingly or negligently.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > You are taking their claims at face value. They are entitled to that presumption until evidence emerges otherwise. (This is not the case in the UK!) > A court case in the US would still require them to provide that substantiation, otherwise their claims could be considered libel. No. A court case in the US would require Pretty to show evidence they had reason to believe the information was false for them to be liable for defamation.

> In the UK, it's more akin to an allegation. No. It means the libeller couldn't prove what they were saying.

by 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.

The 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 ago
The "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 ago
  If 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 ago
    So 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!
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      The claims in https://scala-open-letter.github.io/ https://scala-open-letter.github.io/ are that the signers "have become aware" "based on multiple, independent, well-substantiated reports showing a systematic pattern of behavior over an extended period" of harrassment, and links those very multiple, independent reports (of which the second is indeed a substantiation of the first). It's hard to see how any of this is false under the US standards. In the UK, though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law > everyone involved in the dissemination of the defamation is liable as having published it (That wouldn't fly here; retweeting a false claim, barring unusual circumstances, tends not to be actionable.) The actual allegations weren't litigated in this case, it's a settlement, and I don't doubt it made more sense to say "sorry" and pay £5k/person than to spend years in court litigating a crime that is typically done in a way that leaves little physical evidence that someone else asserted happened. Even when you win, you lose! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd Millions in legal fees, two years spent proving the case, and he declares bankruptcy when fees are awarded.
      - tristor 3y ago
        > It's hard to see how any of this is false under the US standards. You are taking their claims at face value. It doesn't matter what standards you apply other than truthfulness, and these claims could still be false. There's no substantiation provided, merely the claim that such exists. A court case in the US would still require them to provide that substantiation, otherwise their claims could be considered libel. While the libel laws in the US and UK differ, it is not legal either in the US to defame someone either knowingly or negligently.
        ceejayoz 3y ago
        > You are taking their claims at face value. They are entitled to that presumption until evidence emerges otherwise. (This is not the case in the UK!) > A court case in the US would still require them to provide that substantiation, otherwise their claims could be considered libel. No. A court case in the US would require Pretty to show evidence they had reason to believe the information was false for them to be liable for defamation.