UK Libel Law Is a Global Threat To Web Free Speech

uctpjac writes "London media lawyer Emily MacManus argues that UK libel law has three features which make it the 'defamation tourism' capital of the world and a serious threat to Web free speech. First, there is no free speech presumption in the UK as there is, for example, in the US. Second, every access of a Web page is considered to be a separate act of publication in the UK (unlike the US, where 'original publication' holds). Third, 'no-win-no-fee' libel litigation is now allowed in the UK. If any blog, anywhere, publishes something you'd like taken down, threaten libel action in the UK: no one except the super-rich can afford to even take these cases to court, so media lawyers advise publishers to 'take it down, take it down quickly, take it down again.' There's not much chance that the judges will move the law any time soon because they just aren't seeing the cases that could cause them to set new precedent."

Re:And this is just one example

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. Giving DNS control to any body outside of the USA would be FAIL. The only country I trust to keep DNS poison free is the USA. Let's face it, the only place in the world where /everyone/ has a voice on such matters is the USA.

(OK, OK, you might argue that the communists and fascists don't have a voice, but they are the ones that want to censor, thereby eliminating other voices.)

Re:Why should I care about foreign court orders?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The court finds you guilty in absentia and... what? Tells you to stop or they will shout stop again?

Well it would certainly cut-down on UK tourism: "Sorry hon we can't go to England - I have a warrant for my arrest." "For what???" "I called Prince William a drunken embarrassment on my blog, and a judge convicted me of libel." "Oooh." "In fact pretty much the whole of the European Union is off-limits due to extradition laws." "...." "Yeah."

Re:lol

[h4rm0ny]

Than why were mentally retarded people given the death penalty?

Because Texas has a different standard for "mentally retarded" than the rest of the USA.

Re:Why should I care about foreign court orders?

[TheRaven64]

As a UK-based Slashdotter, I consider your claim libellous. Please take it down immediately. Failure to do so will result in my asking you again.

Re:lol

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Yes, and USians brag and boast about living in a democracy, where everyone has equal chance to be president, and many other imagined "virtues", despite none of those things being true.
I was unaware that the University of Southern Indiana Association of Nursing Students spent so much time bragging about living in a democracy. Oh, you meant Americans how droll you are.

To quote Avy from Snatch:

[rehabdoll]

- Anything to declare?
- Yeah, don't go to England

Re:lol

[mustafap]

Yea, I know. I just had one of those "Someone on the Internet is wrong!" moments.

Re:God save the Queen!!

[Patch86]

The UK functions almost entirely on unspoken agreements. We don't have an official constitution- but we do have an unspoken agreement that one is there, and that you're not allowed to change it (although political parties have wanted to do so plenty of times). We don't have protected constitutional rights- but we do have unspoken agreement that governments aren't allowed to repeal those rights that aren't there or else something bad might happen (and curiously enough, that one's always seemed to work).

The Queen very much exists in a state of perpetual unspoken agreement. Although technically we're all her property, we all agree not to make a fuss as long as she never tries to exert her ownership in any way (and she doesn't). Although technically she has supreme power of governance, we're all happy to ignore that fact for as long as no-one mentions it too loudly. Technically we can't oust her without violent revolution, but in actuality we all know that we can (as have many of her subjects in ex-Empire countries); both we and her pretend that we can't for as long as she behaves like we can (but equally, as she's only around for the image of the thing, she's not allowed to mention it either so as not to wreck the illusion).

The upshot of all this is no-one is actually terribly sure what will happen if, for example, the government tries to take away an important right. Maybe they'll be allowed to. Maybe the Queen (who technically has to sign off every single law personally) might refuse to pass it in to law (for her own self-preservation if nothing else). Maybe that bloody revolution everyone seems to have had might finally happen in Britain (we're only a couple of centuries late to the party). Maybe the Scots and the Welsh might get together and liberate the English. Maybe option D. It's anyone's guess.

Britain can be confusing.