4 ms·
Having the burden of proof on the defendant is a terrible idea. The imbalance in the UK libel system has given rise to libel tourism [1]. This is something the
by cletus 14y ago
Having the burden of proof on the defendant is a terrible idea. The imbalance in the UK libel system has given rise to libel tourism [1]. This is something the UK has been seeking to reform [2].
If you're a public figure or an organisation then we have to accept that some people are going to say some crazy things otherwise it would be too easy to use the courts to silence legitimate criticism.
As for Elsevier's package pricing strategy, it's interesting how similar this is to how cable companies price offerings.
In the case of cable companies (IMHO) we need structural separation between those that own the physical network and those that provide services on it. Around the world telecommunications policy is slowly heading in this direction in relation to the "last mile".
In the case of academic journals it seems academics are victims of themselves basically. Prestigious journals carry weight because academics give them weight. Promotions and continued employment sometimes revolve around getting published. At that point the academics are captive to those that provide those journals.
Previously distribution was a key problem. Now obviously it isn't. Some disciplines have taken a far more open approach to publication and peer review. This problem will probably be solved as more disciplines get organized and go their own way.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8379196/New-rules-to-discourage-libel-tourism-in-Britain.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8379196...
- weel 14y agoEnglish libel law is ridiculous, and yet it still hasn't gotten reformed. Remember the McLibel case? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case) I don't exactly sympathize with the panicky rhetoric of the pamphlet that was about, but nothing in it comes anywhere close to the kind of thing libel law legitimately protects against, and it looks like stuff that would be perfectly legal to say in more reasonable jurisdictions like Holland or the US. But yes, even more outrageous than English libel law (there's no such thing as "UK libel law," since Scots law is different) is this Libel tourism business. I wonder what it would take to get this reformed. Any British people on here who have a better view of the local political climate? I somehow suspect that a push from local constituent carries more weight in British politics in today's climate than ECHR judgments like the one in the McLibel case. Is there anyone strongly pushing for these strict laws, or is it just a case of inertia combined with nobody pushing very hard against it?
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago>there's no such thing as "UK libel law," since Scots law is different // If we're being pedantic shouldn't it be England-and-Wales libel law?
- simonh 14y agos/pedantic/welsh/ What the hell, my karma was getting a bit high anyway.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoIt's actual until recently been a bit redundant as Wales was only really created as a recognisable entity as it was annexed to England (thus becoming part of England as any other county or region, Yorkshire for example). I've not really researched if Wales exists as a country now only that someone told me the laws establishing the Senedd and giving it powers had changed the situation.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoEnglish and Welsh libel law is being reformed - there's a bill going through parliament at the moment. The new law is a long way from perfect but is an improvement. Scots libel law is different but shares some of the problems as well as having several of it's own. My favourite is that historic (not something that has been used recently, though technically still true) if you hurt someone's feelings it doesn't matter that you were telling the truth...
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoComment for the down vote? The post is, as far as I'm aware, completely factual and I'd be interested to know where I'm wrong.