Wikileaks and Iceland MPs Propose Journalism Haven 153
geegel sends word that Iceland could become a journalism haven if a proposal put forward by some Icelandic MPs, aided by Wikileaks, succeeds. Julian Assange, editor of Wikileaks, said that the idea is to "try and reform Iceland's media law to be a very attractive jurisdiction for investigative journalists." The article notes one area in which supporters of the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative need to tread carefully: "...the troubles of the financial sector may lead some Icelanders to be sceptical of efforts to transform their country and [one supporter] is aware of the need not to make exaggerated claims." A British opponent of the idea (and supporter of the UK's draconian libel laws) is quoted: "The provisions allowing defendants to counter-sue 'libel tourists' in their home courts could transform the humble Icelander into a legal superman, virtually untouchable abroad for comment written — and uploaded — at home."
virtually untouchable? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fantastic! (Score:2, Interesting)
As a US citizen, I'm looking forward to it.
Badly Needed (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, after the banks crashed, they started digging and produced a program about the events that led to the crash.
Unfortunately, when the episode was ready, but just before it aired, the media company controlled by "Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson", decided to cancel the Program because of "Financial reasons", even though this was one of the most popular programs in Iceland.
The episode on the events leading up to the bank crash, made by Iceland's best known investigative journalists, has still not been aired.
Re:Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember when the United States was something like that.
I remember when people thought the United States was something like that.
I can't remember it ever being the case though.
Re:virtually untouchable? (Score:4, Interesting)
I concur.
Free speech should mean exactly that. You own your mouth, and nobody else should be able to muzzle it under any circumstances (unless you are inside their house or other private domain). Slander/libel laws shouldn't even exist. If you don't like what somebody is saying about you, then use your own mouth to tell those frakkers to "put up (evidence) or shut up".
Re:Oh noes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Something that hasn't hit the journalistic radar yet:
Jack Straw MP (UK Justice Secretary) announced in the house this Tuesday that he will be undertaking a serious review of Britain's libel laws in light of the fact that Britain is often viewed as a 'libel haven' (paraphrasing) for overseas corporations.
This won't be likely to result in new legislation before the end of this Parliament (likely to be April-May 2010), but at least it will put the issue on the agenda for the next one.
-Nano.
(Yes, I watch the Parliament channel...)
Re:Fantastic! (Score:3, Interesting)
We know now how much banks are international. Could some court in Iceland persuade an Icelandic subsidiary of my own bank to turn over what I "owed" following a court case?
We might not think so, but finance looks very incestuous to me.
Re:virtually untouchable? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can prove what you said was factual then it is an absolute defense against any slander or libel claim in the US, as I understand it that's not an absolute defense in other countries.
Re:Working as intended? (Score:3, Interesting)
You misunderstand. In a libel or slander suit in the US, it is up to you to prove to a jury that you were harmed. It is much easier to prove if you can show documented financial harm.
Case one: You are a movie star, you have big box office numbers, someone says you have sex with fish, all of a sudden you can't draw an audience, cut and dried.
Case two: you are some random guy. Someone says you have sex with fish. You've got nothing concrete to show the jury. Maybe they'll side with you, maybe not.
Nobody is turning a blind eye to anything, get it? It's about proof. If anybody could go to a judge and just say, "He hurt my feelings, make him give me money!" and actually get the money, then nobody would have anything resembling free speech.
Now, if Random Guy could show that he suffered some sort of emotional collapse after the fish fucking accusation, and couldn't get out of bed to go to work, he might have a case.
Anyone can claim hurt feelings. Anyone can claim emotional damages. It's very easy to LIE about those kind of things. The US system is not blind to such claims, as you seem to imply, it is just harder to prove, which is fair and just.
To be fair, in the example I give in case one, special rules apply to public figures. It would be fairly easy to claim that I was engaging in satire or parody if I claimed a movie star was a piscisexual.
Re:Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
Before I wrote that I actually did think up the worst anti-free-speech activity by the government I could think of, and the Free Speech Zone issue is what I came up with. Then I thought how that compares to being dragged through courts in libel actions, and decided that as bad as the FSZ is, in the grand scheme of things it's not really up there on the speech suppression scale.
Re:virtually untouchable? (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't know history. President Adams used libel laws in the 1790s to jail American newsmen, including Ben Franklin's cousin (who died in prison). President Wilson used both libel and slander laws to imprison anyone who spoke-out against the war, or his administration in general (including suffragette Alice Paul).
You call that a false dichotomy? I call it documented evidence. These laws shouldn't be on the books, because they can be (and were) used by leaders to imprison Americans in violation of their first amendment rights.
Re:virtually untouchable? (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, the UK is a very backwards nation; did you know that MPs aren't allowed to accuse each other of lying, even if it is blatantly obvious [wikipedia.org]? I totally agree that libel laws can get too far and that there is a reasonable balance; the problem is that with some countries, it goes beyond mere laws; in the UK, reputation is and has historically always been very important, and their legal system is unfortunately built around that.
If a legislature isn't able to debate the truth of its member's claims, there's a problem.