2 ms·
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.
by 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 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!
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe 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.
- nailer 3y agoWhy are people entitled to say bad things about others they cannot prove are true?
- ceejayoz 3y agoBecause sometimes people do bad things in ways that are hard to prove, but they still happen. The Catholic priest makes sure he and the altar boy are the only ones in the church. The coworker who makes unwelcome advances is careful to do it verbally when there aren’t witnesses. The abusive spouse leverages psychological traumas to make their partner feel crazy.
- exe34 3y agoAnd how do you pick whose lives to ruin without evidence? What do you do about the ones who are wrongly accused? How many innocent lives are you willing to destroy?
- dragonwriter 3y agoGood faith (that is, having evidence from which one would reasonably believe the truth of the statement at the time it was made) is not a defense to libel in British law. Libel in the UK is a strict liability tort, the statement can be 100% justified based on the information in hand when it is made, and even if the court would agree with that were it permitted to consider it, if the court finds it is false based on information that the defendant did not have (or even could not possibly have had, no matter how hard they sought it) at the time of the statement, the defendant will still be liable. EDIT: while the NY Times v. Sullivan rules for public officials (extended by other cases to public figures) get more attention, the Gertz v. Welch rule that, as a matter of Constitutional law, requires fault for defamation liability for private figures is arguably more fundamental difference between the US and UK on defamation law.
- stewoconnor 3y agoIt's possible that we no longer remember ALL of the evidence we had when we drafted this letter, but the letter links to two first hand accounts of wrongdoing. I also have also talked to multiple other women in the community that say that Jon was someone that women generally knew to warn each other about since there were enough believable accounts of his wrongdoing.