6 ms·

I'm a big fan of the English libel law; to my mind, if you write something about someone, you should bear responsibility for ensuring that what you write is tru

I'm a big fan of the English libel law; to my mind, if you write something about someone, you should bear responsibility for ensuring that what you write is true, and have the proof to back it up. Placing the responsibility on the person you're writing about seems just plain unfair to me. The only problem with the English libel laws is it takes so long to resolve a case. I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense, and would prefer this aspect to be fixed first - if at all possible.

ktizo 14y ago
If everyone had to prove that what they said was absolutely true before saying anything then nothing would get said as it is almost impossible to prove a positive.
- fauldsh 14y ago
  I have no real knowledge of the law. But I thought it was more along the lines of, you have to have sufficient evidence. If it transpires you were wrong you're ok as long as you had good reason to think it was true. I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now.
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now. I came across the following basic explanation a while ago, seems like a pretty decent write-up: There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken. In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it! For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be. Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed. Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC). Continued here: http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
    - excuse-me 14y ago
      Similarly truth isn't an absolute defence. If I stated a particular politician was gay or had an abortion, every time my publication mentioned them - even if that was true - then if it was done purely malicously, ie. it had nothing to do with the article, that could be slander/libel. There are exceptions for reporting legal judgements, which is why its important to always refer to the convicted liar Jeffery Archer
      - true_religion 14y ago
        I'm really straining to see how you can be slandered by the fact of your sexuality.
        DanBC 14y ago
        Historically some people wanted to keep their sexuality private because they felt they might lose sales / votes / whatever if people knew their sexuality. Don't forget that homosexuality has only relatively recently become legal in England. The Jason Donovan case is particularly interesting. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sad-about-the-boy-1270092.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sad-about-the-boy-1270092....) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Donovan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Donovan) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/17/law.claredyer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/17/law.claredyer)
        excuse-me 14y ago
        Hopefully these days you couldn't be because nobody should care. But if you were running say a local paper and you went out of your way to consistently describe a local politician or school teacher/principal as "the homosexual Mr Smith" and your intentions were malicious they could have a reasonable chance of damages from you.
- drone 14y ago
  Really? I thought it was almost impossible to prove a negative. "You eat babies in your spare time!" "No, no I don't." The 1st can produce a picture of the person eating a baby, how does the 2nd prove that he doesn't eat babies? If the person who had the claim made against them had to definitively prove that beyond a doubt he doesn't eat babies - he'd have to have had someone recording him for every minute of his waking life, including those moments prior to the claim. The only way to prove a negative is to run a (perhaps nearly) infinite number of tests and never get that result.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Really? I thought it was almost impossible to prove a negative. Go read Karl Popper on falsifiability.
    - drone 14y ago
      ... and most of the examples shows proving a positive as well, and also clearly exerts why the statement I said in my post is not falsifiable. Your original statement, was, btw, "it is almost impossible to prove a positive." So, how is it nearly impossible to prove "this swan is white," but highly possible to prove "no swan has ever been black?" I can prove there is a mouse that is blue and black on my desk, but I cannot prove that there has never been a red and black mouse on my desk, I can only assert such.
    - dkokelley 14y ago
      Why don't you try your best to summarize the pertinent aspects of falsifiability for the community? I'll try to start. Here's some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
  - Jesse_Ray 14y ago
    There is no trouble in proving a negative that does not exist for proving a positive. For example, you can prove to your own satisfaction that there are no monkeys on your shoulder, even though that is a negative claim. The problem of proof to which you alluded with your example is just the famous problem of induction, which exists for both positive and negative claims. The negative claim that so-and-so has never eaten a baby is difficult to prove because that claim is actually a group of claims: so-and-so was not eating babies at time one, time two, time three, etc. Each and every claim in that sequence could be proven with a photograph that shows so-and-so doing something other than eating babies. Each negative in that sequence is provable. The problem is the length of the sequence: you need hundreds and hundreds of proofs. You would have the same trouble with any similar sequence of positive claims, such as the sequence entailed by the statement that there is a human-habitable planet in one out of ten solar systems.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  If everyone had to prove that what they said was absolutely true before saying anything then nothing would get said as it is almost impossible to prove a positive. Doesn't the coexistence of the libel laws and the media industry kinda prove you wrong there?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - insanecanadian 14y ago
    The media industry has a fair bit of money to fight off these libel suits. Most of the normal people hit by them? Not as much.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  You don't have to mathematically prove your case - just that you had reasonable grounds for stating it.
Symmetry 14y ago
Did you do research on how long it takes to resolve trials in England vs. other countries before writing that post?
- mootothemax 14y ago
  Did you do research on how long it takes to resolve trials in England vs. other countries before writing that post? No. Why would that be relevant?
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    May I suggest you haven't thought your position through as carefully as you should then? You made an assertion for which you lack "the proof to back it up". Isn't that exactly what you're claiming ought to be a tort? Personally, I'm happy that I don't usually have to go double check every single fact I assert on forums like this one. That does mean that I'm wrong occasionally, but I'm happy to be corrected by others. I think less interesting conversations would happen if this wasn't true.
    - mootothemax 14y ago
      You made an assertion for which you lack "the proof to back it up". Isn't that exactly what you're claiming ought to be a tort? No, I'm talking about libel laws. From another comment lower down: "There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken." Just to clarify, from Wikipedia: Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image Under the UK laws, fair comment is a valid defence. Again from Wikipedia: This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Fair_comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Fair_com... So it's not like you can't comment on anything. I think less interesting conversations would happen if this wasn't true. The libel laws have been around a long time, and apparently from 2006, writings on the internet have been seen as being public enough for prosecutions to take place. Have you noticed a drop-off in internet conversations from British contributors since then?
genwin 14y ago
> I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense The legal system is a highly profitable industry. It's why obvious frivolous lawsuits can go to trial.
- excuse-me 14y ago
  On the other hand they were very lucky. Foreign "crank" defending himself - VS - one of the oldest and most prestigous science journals now owned by a huge publishing company. Now imagine the next case is a multinational drug company suing an individual researcher or grad student because their published results don't fit with what the drug company would like to see.
rm445 14y ago
You may not be aware that the truth is not an absolute defence against libel under English law. Not only do you have to prove what you wrote was true, you also have to prove it was in the public interest to publish it.
- handelaar 14y ago
  That is absolutely incorrect. Demonstrating that what you published is true is an complete and unimpeachable defence against any libel action.
  - kellerscholl 14y ago
    I believe that there are privacy considerations for non public figures, though I could easily be wrong.

ktizo 14y ago

If everyone had to prove that what they said was absolutely true before saying anything then nothing would get said as it is almost impossible to prove a positive.

fauldsh 14y ago
I have no real knowledge of the law. But I thought it was more along the lines of, you have to have sufficient evidence. If it transpires you were wrong you're ok as long as you had good reason to think it was true. I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now.
- mootothemax 14y ago
  I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now. I came across the following basic explanation a while ago, seems like a pretty decent write-up: There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken. In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it! For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be. Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed. Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC). Continued here: http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    Similarly truth isn't an absolute defence. If I stated a particular politician was gay or had an abortion, every time my publication mentioned them - even if that was true - then if it was done purely malicously, ie. it had nothing to do with the article, that could be slander/libel. There are exceptions for reporting legal judgements, which is why its important to always refer to the convicted liar Jeffery Archer
    - true_religion 14y ago
      I'm really straining to see how you can be slandered by the fact of your sexuality.
      - DanBC 14y ago
        Historically some people wanted to keep their sexuality private because they felt they might lose sales / votes / whatever if people knew their sexuality. Don't forget that homosexuality has only relatively recently become legal in England. The Jason Donovan case is particularly interesting. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sad-about-the-boy-1270092.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sad-about-the-boy-1270092....) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Donovan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Donovan) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/17/law.claredyer http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/17/law.claredyer)
      - excuse-me 14y ago
        Hopefully these days you couldn't be because nobody should care. But if you were running say a local paper and you went out of your way to consistently describe a local politician or school teacher/principal as "the homosexual Mr Smith" and your intentions were malicious they could have a reasonable chance of damages from you.
drone 14y ago
Really? I thought it was almost impossible to prove a negative. "You eat babies in your spare time!" "No, no I don't." The 1st can produce a picture of the person eating a baby, how does the 2nd prove that he doesn't eat babies? If the person who had the claim made against them had to definitively prove that beyond a doubt he doesn't eat babies - he'd have to have had someone recording him for every minute of his waking life, including those moments prior to the claim. The only way to prove a negative is to run a (perhaps nearly) infinite number of tests and never get that result.
- ktizo 14y ago
  Really? I thought it was almost impossible to prove a negative. Go read Karl Popper on falsifiability.
  - drone 14y ago
    ... and most of the examples shows proving a positive as well, and also clearly exerts why the statement I said in my post is not falsifiable. Your original statement, was, btw, "it is almost impossible to prove a positive." So, how is it nearly impossible to prove "this swan is white," but highly possible to prove "no swan has ever been black?" I can prove there is a mouse that is blue and black on my desk, but I cannot prove that there has never been a red and black mouse on my desk, I can only assert such.
  - dkokelley 14y ago
    Why don't you try your best to summarize the pertinent aspects of falsifiability for the community? I'll try to start. Here's some background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- Jesse_Ray 14y ago
  There is no trouble in proving a negative that does not exist for proving a positive. For example, you can prove to your own satisfaction that there are no monkeys on your shoulder, even though that is a negative claim. The problem of proof to which you alluded with your example is just the famous problem of induction, which exists for both positive and negative claims. The negative claim that so-and-so has never eaten a baby is difficult to prove because that claim is actually a group of claims: so-and-so was not eating babies at time one, time two, time three, etc. Each and every claim in that sequence could be proven with a photograph that shows so-and-so doing something other than eating babies. Each negative in that sequence is provable. The problem is the length of the sequence: you need hundreds and hundreds of proofs. You would have the same trouble with any similar sequence of positive claims, such as the sequence entailed by the statement that there is a human-habitable planet in one out of ten solar systems.
mootothemax 14y ago
If everyone had to prove that what they said was absolutely true before saying anything then nothing would get said as it is almost impossible to prove a positive. Doesn't the coexistence of the libel laws and the media industry kinda prove you wrong there?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- insanecanadian 14y ago
  The media industry has a fair bit of money to fight off these libel suits. Most of the normal people hit by them? Not as much.
excuse-me 14y ago
You don't have to mathematically prove your case - just that you had reasonable grounds for stating it.

Symmetry 14y ago

Did you do research on how long it takes to resolve trials in England vs. other countries before writing that post?

mootothemax 14y ago
Did you do research on how long it takes to resolve trials in England vs. other countries before writing that post? No. Why would that be relevant?
- Symmetry 14y ago
  May I suggest you haven't thought your position through as carefully as you should then? You made an assertion for which you lack "the proof to back it up". Isn't that exactly what you're claiming ought to be a tort? Personally, I'm happy that I don't usually have to go double check every single fact I assert on forums like this one. That does mean that I'm wrong occasionally, but I'm happy to be corrected by others. I think less interesting conversations would happen if this wasn't true.
  - mootothemax 14y ago
    You made an assertion for which you lack "the proof to back it up". Isn't that exactly what you're claiming ought to be a tort? No, I'm talking about libel laws. From another comment lower down: "There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken." Just to clarify, from Wikipedia: Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image Under the UK laws, fair comment is a valid defence. Again from Wikipedia: This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Fair_comment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Fair_com... So it's not like you can't comment on anything. I think less interesting conversations would happen if this wasn't true. The libel laws have been around a long time, and apparently from 2006, writings on the internet have been seen as being public enough for prosecutions to take place. Have you noticed a drop-off in internet conversations from British contributors since then?

genwin 14y ago

> I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense The legal system is a highly profitable industry. It's why obvious frivolous lawsuits can go to trial.

excuse-me 14y ago
On the other hand they were very lucky. Foreign "crank" defending himself - VS - one of the oldest and most prestigous science journals now owned by a huge publishing company. Now imagine the next case is a multinational drug company suing an individual researcher or grad student because their published results don't fit with what the drug company would like to see.

rm445 14y ago

You may not be aware that the truth is not an absolute defence against libel under English law. Not only do you have to prove what you wrote was true, you also have to prove it was in the public interest to publish it.

handelaar 14y ago
That is absolutely incorrect. Demonstrating that what you published is true is an complete and unimpeachable defence against any libel action.
- kellerscholl 14y ago
  I believe that there are privacy considerations for non public figures, though I could easily be wrong.