UK Libel Law Is a Global Threat To Web Free Speech 363
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
If you mean it should be given to another, separate, international entity, you are absolutely right. But I get the feeling that you'd rather maintain the status quo, and I can't see how that would help in matters like these...
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in summary, UK law prevents a poster from making libelous claims on the web. I didn't think the right to free speech came with the right to defame; even in the US.
You might think that, you [insert crazy libel here]. But think it through.
In the US, you have an absolute right to state your honest opinion, or your honestly believed facts. So, if I believed that, oh, the local priest molested little boys, I could stand out and say that without being sued. If I thought he'd molested a friend of mine, I could picket in front of his house, until the police finally came and did something about it.
But in the UK?
As soon as I started picketing, I could be charged with slander*. (Or libel, if I did so through publication.) The church would take me to court, where I would have to prove my claims. If I can't -- because, for example, my friend isn't allowed to testify -- then I could lose my car, house, and the $20 in my pocket.
The bad part that the summary went into -- the really, REALLY bad part -- is that if I put up a website in the USA, talking about how a priest in Mexico molests children, that priest can go to the United Kingdom and sue me there.
And there's no way in hell I can afford to fly to the UK just to defend the rights my forefathers fought to give me. Nor should I.
Re:Why should I care about foreign court orders? (Score:2, Insightful)
UK Law Pointless (Score:0, Insightful)
You're either mislead or misleading. (Score:1, Insightful)
I have no idea what the submitter is referring to when he claims that the UK lacks a right to free speech. The article itself makes no such claim, although it does go on to raise other issues that are less easy to argue with.
As a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, any body acting in a public manner, not just in a vertical (governmental) relationship as in the US Bill of Rights, is required to act in accordance with ECHR articles. Article 10 guarantees a right to freedom of expression, limited only in accordance with law, and only where such laws are found to be necessary for a functioning democratic society. As another commenter points out above, neither this, nor the US's first amendment, are apt to shield defamers from litigation.
On another note, I don't appreciate the UK being referred to as a whole in this matter, we in Scotland have a distinct legal system and this is more relevant in regard to defamation than in almost any other area.
If you take issue with our defamation law, that's something you need to raise with the EU, where most of our modern development in this regard, especially electronic correspondence, comes from. However, it's irresponsible and misleading to imply that we lack basic respect for a right to free speech.
I_A_AL, the submitter clearly isn't.
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately USA will learn that it works and implement those laws too.
Re:Why should I care about foreign court orders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, some slashdotters actually live in the UK!
Yes, and it's bad they live under such rules. I hope they'll be able to use the democratic process to change them, or the immigration process to make them inapplicable to them.
But my point is that it is not a global threat to Web free speech as the article said. Of course, UK law can hurt UK residents, just as US law can hurt US residents. That's part of the cost of living in a country, and the reason I switched.
makes me glad I'm not an English citizen (Score:3, Insightful)
*thinks back to all the times UK posters have bitched and moaned about "rights", not visiting the US, etc*
Always found it amusing in the first place given they've gone completely fucking bonkers with speed cameras, CCTV, "anti social behavior" laws, and of course the UK has much of the same anti-terror bullshit. Meanwhile, Cambridge (mass) just rejected cameras that were going to be installed by Homeland Insecurity over privacy issues. The backlash is gaining; in the UK, it never started.
Our politicians seem to be trying desperately to go the way of England with taxes, but the decision to split from England ~230 years ago appears to have been an excellent one nonetheless.
Re:Why does libel law exist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not just give a `right of reply' and be done with it?
Unless by "right of reply", you mean the existing free speech rights that everyone already has, I'd rather have libel suits than some "right of reply".
Any reasonable enactment of "right of reply" will include provisions which make it mandatory to publish the reply in the same forum where the defamatory statement was originally made. That means if I ever make a statement on my website considered defamatory by anyone, then, by law, I would have to print, on my own website, at my own cost, a statement which would directly contradict what I said and which I would most likely not agree with.
Free speech doesn't mean anyone can put any sign they want on my lawn. Free speech simply means I can put whatever sign I want on my lawn (save for obscenity laws and local codes), and maybe public places, where such posting is allowed.
So, I would rather have libel suits, which I just need to fight off once, rather than "right of reply", which would be more insidious and annoying than libel suits.
Submitter is either misleading or mislead (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea what the submitter is referring to when he claims that the UK lacks a right to free speech. The article itself makes no such claim, although it does go on to raise other issues that are less easy to argue with.
As a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, any body acting in a public manner, not just in a vertical (governmental) relationship as in the US Bill of Rights, is required to act in accordance with ECHR articles. Article 10 guarantees a right to freedom of expression, limited only in accordance with law, and only where such laws are found to be necessary for a functioning democratic society. As another commenter points out above, neither this, nor the US's first amendment, are apt to shield defamers from litigation.
On another note, I don't appreciate the UK being referred to as a whole in this matter, we in Scotland have a distinct legal system and this is more relevant in regard to defamation than in almost any other area.
If you take issue with our defamation law, that's something you need to raise with the EU, where most of our modern development in this regard, especially electronic correspondence, comes from. However, it's irresponsible and misleading to imply that we lack basic respect for a right to free speech.
I_A_AL, he clearly isn't.
Not entirely true - Judges are getting it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges and Appeal judges are starting to get it. In the mean time, make sure you post your opinions of bankers and politicians through a suitable proxy onto US servers.
Re:lol (Score:1, Insightful)
Like death-penalty for minors or your recent foray into torture? I fail to see the connection with job-creation in academia.
Re:lol (Score:1, Insightful)
i don't see why 18 is the magic number when it comes to being accountable for your actions. if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
if you want to bring up that the mind-set of an under 18 is not there yet, take a 19 y/o vs a 39 y/o. both can receive the death penalty, but very few would argue they are on equal maturity and decision making levels.
punishment should be based on mind-set and maturity, not some pulled-out-of-your-ass age.
there are 15 y/o's that very much deserve the death penalty.
Re:lol (Score:4, Insightful)
if someone is mature enough at 15 to commit a crime in the mind-set of an adult, why shouldn't they face adult consequences?
Because we wanted to pick a hard number that can be applied to everyone, without having to give a fuzzy profile to every criminal.
We picked 18. At 18 you can vote, you can marry, and you are liable for the entirety of your own actions. We could have picked 16, or 25, or 30, but we picked 18.
Oh, and punnishment IS based on mind-set and maturity. Even if you're a minor, you can be tried as an adult for especially henious crimes. And if you're over 18 and mentally undeveloped, well, then you're essentially treated like a child.
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:1, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. Due to the legal blockades in the UK, if you label ANYTHING you don't like as defamation, it must realistically be taken down. You might think you have the freedom to criticize your local government and their policies
I'm sorry, this is not true (and IAAL - hence anonymous posting)
There's a number of defences to defamation in the UK. One is fair comment. You can make a fair comment about something of interest. That includes local government and their policies. That includes religions. That includes celebrities, sportsmen - whatever. The only requirement is you're not doing it out of malice.
Another is truth (justification). If you can prove your comment to be substantially true (not wholly true), it's a complete defence. For example, there's a case where a man sued the newspaper which said he went to prison for 3 weeks. In reality he went to prison for 2 weeks. The case wasn't even put to the jury, because the statement was shown to be substantially true. It is not a "ridiculous way that those in power" can "keep down the voice and will of the people". For one thing, it's private law, not public law. For another thing, it's tried by jury, not a judge, and certainly not a politician.
People like yourself, who cry the sky is falling over a red herring, do as much damage as this alarmist article in the first place to the cause of civil liberties. We need to focus on real problems in rights, specifically in the criminal and public law systems, rather than invent them in the context of private litigation.
Besides, is the alternative that we permit defamation? Even though you can get a no win, no fee firm to represent you in such a case?
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:3, Insightful)
You might think that, you [insert crazy libel here]. But think it through.
In the US, you have an absolute right to state your honest opinion, or your honestly believed facts. So, if I believed that, oh, the local priest molested little boys, I could stand out and say that without being sued. *snip*
Unfortunately with how the civil court system works that is not 100% true, as you can be sued by anyone for almost anything, at any time.
The question will be if can you afford to fight to prove you are right or will you be forced to roll over?
Re:lol (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed.
Now I know Ive posted this before, but there are just so many instances of this nonsense, that I feel it needs to be repeated at every opportunity.
A local company, Caton Commercial [catoncommercial.net], decided to send a threatening letter in an attempt to prevent the publication of the public court schedule of their pending cases. Claims of libel were made, along with copyright, trademark, and CRIMINAL charges. You can read the poorly thought out Cease and Desist Letter here [catoncommercial.net].
It did not seem to matter to them that the ACTUAL COURT was publishing this info that was being linked to. I did not back down, or respond in any way to their threats. Ive never heard another word about it from this company, or their lawyer. It seems that having such asinine claims and accusations published for the world to see, is the best way to respond to such ignorant claims of the self-important.
And while it was not a once in a lifetime experience(although hearing a lawyer try to argue that the courts own publicly published information was libel would have been), it also did NOT leave me in a world of hurt for not backing down. In fact quite the opposite, it gave me a feeling of great confidence that the things that are important to me are worth fighting for, and that I have the integrity to stick to what I believe with my actions, as well as my words.
Needless to say, the actual cowards are the ones who send out letters like this.
Re:And this is just one example (Score:2, Insightful)
I think giving more control of the Internet to a country that in the last decade has suspended habeas corpus, wiretapped the conversations of its own citizens without warrant, proclaimed that the protections of liberty enshrined in its founding document apply only to its own citizens (and what does it matter since it's "just a goddamned piece of paper" anyway), created a copyright law that is incompatible with the principles of Fair User and the Public Domain, created another law that makes it illegal for you to know or reveal that you are under suspicion of violating it, started teaching Intelligent Design in "science class" in a lot of places, went abso-fucking-lutely ballistic because some chick flashed a nipple at the Superbowl for chrissakes and doesn't seem all that interested in things like net neutrality, open standards and document formats and the freedom of individuals to do as they please with their own properety, would be an EPIC fail.
Give control of the DNS to the people at Wikileaks, or Groklaw, or NYCL. Give it to the Pirate Bay, I don't care.
But do not give it to the US, the UK, Australia would probably be bad, even Canada is getting sketchy ...
Re:There should be something scary under the hood (Score:4, Insightful)
"Liberals" seek government surveilence to "protect" people from themselves. "Conservatives" seek government surveilence to "protect" people from terrorists.
"Libertarians" seek citizen surveilence to protect people from their government.
Say what you will about the "craziness" of this or that Libertarian idea... they correctly understand that no matter who's in power, they're always trying to screw you.
Re:lol (Score:2, Insightful)
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. On the other side of the coin, they'll happily bemoan the corruption and poor human rights in China, or the lack of free speech, whilst being in denial about the very same things happening under their own noses.
The sad fact is that many western citizens consider themselves free and enlightened and free of propaganda, while swallowing propaganda whole on a daily basis.
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if I believed that, oh, the local priest molested little boys, I could stand out and say that without being sued.
Funny. I was under the impression that, in the good old USA, anybody could sue you for anything and, even if their case got laughed out of court, you'd still have to re-mortgage your home to pay your legal fees - whereas in most of the rest of the world anyone bringing a frivolous lawsuit risks having to pay for the entire cost of the process.
Even no-win-no-fee relies on the lawyers (or their insurance company) seeing a case as a "good risk".
Its probably true that the UK libel laws are worse than the US (freedom of speech is lurking somewhere amongst tradition, Magna Carta and the European Court of Human Rights, but its hard to pin down), but the real problem in this case is that ISPs would rather delete a website accused of defamation/copyright violation/hate speech/supporting terrorism than get embroiled in litigation which, whichever side of the Atlantic you live on, is never a one-way-bet (unless you are a lawyer). The old "how much justice can you afford" problem is not limited to a single country.
People don't read certain UK newspapers (Score:3, Insightful)
The Daily Mail does it quite often and I don't see them getting into trouble.
Not quite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why should I care about foreign court orders? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:lol (Score:2, Insightful)
as to your claims of these alleged none existent virtues- what is imagined? could you elaborate on these fairy tales of freedom?
the true beauty of the United States is that you don't know what you can get away with til you try.
Re:lol (Score:3, Insightful)
If you behave like a lunatic, odds are you will be treated like a lunatic.
Hate speech *should be* free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
In the immortal words of Eminem: "How much damage can you do with a pen?"
Re:Right to Free Speech != Right to Defame (Score:2, Insightful)
You are not "guilty until considered innocent" when you are sued for libel. You are the one who has made serious claims about other people, and the court is now asking you to put up evidence or shut up and compensate your victim. I hardly see how that is automatically a travesty of natural justice.
In any event, reversing the law doesn't really solve your problem - imagine you have been accused of a crime by a UK newspaper that didn't do its research properly and you now have to spend two years salary on a Barrister while "proving" the accusations are false before the court allows your case to proceed.
Don't think it couldn't happen - just last year a large number of London newspapers were successfully sued by a man who they completely falsely insinuated had murdered a small child. The case is still unsolved, so presumably under your preferred rules he would either have had to solve a case half the Portugese police haven't been able to, or just put up with the fact that his life had been ruined so they could sell a few more papers.
Your problems with witnesses refusing to cross the Atlantic are real, but are really just problems with cross-border civil litigation and not really the UK libel rules. It applies just as much if I was to try to sue an American and had to get witnesses to come to the US to testify that the accusations were false.
Re:lol (Score:3, Insightful)
My only argument to this (as a USian) is that we cost more to bribe/propagandize than those in the other nations, and as a result have a higher quality of life in general. It's not really much of a defense, but it is the truth. We know we are being lied to, we are not blind to the corruption, we simply know that everyone has a price, and for better or for worse, our price leaves us living fairly comfortably. It's sad, it's selfish, but it's the way it is. We are not entirely hypocritical - we criticize the other nations because we want them to pay their citizens better for tolerating their corruption. We're trying to make the world a better place by increasing the cost of running dictatorships and police states such that the subjects of those states are comfortable and happy.
Government is a necessary evil, and corruption is unavoidable (greed is human nature). I hate the fact that we apparently tolerate corruption and propaganda at home (we should be more proactive at spotting it and stamping it out), but no nation can speak from a position of complete perfection. We are still one of the most desirable countries in which to live, so our compromises have worked out well so far - "so far" being a key point. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but that might also be the price of happiness. Or perhaps the cost of happiness is eternal compromise. I think our current dissatisfaction comes not so much from the fact that our freedoms have been dramatically eroded recently, but that we haven't received sufficient compensation (in terms of financial or material well being) in exchange for them. The government/big corporations tried to give us all houses and a bull market that wouldn't stop, but that didn't work out so well.
This isn't, of course, the way we all feel. Invariably someone will reply and say that I have completely misrepresented the situation, or that I shouldn't sacrifice my rights at any cost. Idealists exist everywhere, and I appreciate them because without them we'd be in worse shape than we are now. Most people (myself included) are sheep, cattle. It takes a grave and personal injustice for me to stand up for my rights. I'll debate endlessly here on Slashdot about what is right, but taking action? That's somebody else's job. I'm not proud of it, but I don't deny it. Sadly, the vast majority of the population are like me, so while there'll be a whole slew of Slashdot posters that disagree with my stance, they are unfortunately in the minority outside of Slashdot (and probably within Slashdot as well, where people are MUCH braver on the forums than they are in real life).
Re:implications (Score:3, Insightful)
Fighting for freedom of speech must be done before it is threathened in your own country.
Re:God save the Queen!! (Score:1, Insightful)
And yet, when it comes down to it, the US state and federal governments are a lot more keen on depriving people of liberty than the UK government is.
Which of the US and the UK is it where a man can be told he will die in jail because he stole three slices of pizza? Which is it that persists in depriving some citizens of that most fundamental of all rights, the right to life? Which is it where schoolchildren are regularly arrested and charged with felonies for minor offences? Which is it where, in some places, those who have once been to jail are deprived of their right to democratic participation for life, even if they have completely reformed?
Hint: the answer to all those questions is the same, and it is not the UK. Seems that just because you have a bit of paper that says you've got rights, doesn't actually mean fuck all when the state decides otherwise. "Subject" or "citizen", it's all the same -- you have rights until the state decides you don't, and then no amount of bits of paper will help you, however fine the words written on them may be.
Re:God save the Queen!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but the villain has the right to bear arms. So, who's laughing n... Oh, wait