British Woman's Twitter Comments Spark Expensive Libel Claims 303
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from the BBC: "A woman who complained about an unpaid £146 invoice is facing a libel battle that could cost her more than £100,000. Lesley Kemp, 55, took to Twitter claiming that a company based in the Middle East had failed to pay her promptly for transcription work. Now the firm is suing Mrs Kemp, of Milton Keynes, for defamation, claiming up to £50,000 in damages and a further £70,000 in costs. The company, Resolution Productions, based in Qatar, has yet to comment."
Odd British libel law (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is the truth not considered a valid defense in British courts? Doing otherwise would seem to invite these sorts of suits.
Brett
Re:I don't understand the point. (Score:1, Interesting)
Because Arabs.
Re:Odd British libel law (Score:4, Interesting)
The court has to determine the facts of the matter -- these facts can not be merely assumed as you seem to imply. Thus the court case, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant was dishonest and caused harm -- so the court must now make a decision on these claims from the evidence and arguments submitted.
However, the fact that a lawyer and a barrister have both taken up her case Pro-Bono shows that her statements were indeed based upon fact.
Re:I have to deal with libel on /. every day... ap (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot, we BADLY NEED a button at THE TOP of the message that says HIDE THIS FUCKING SPAM. Maybe another one that says ADMINISTRATORS, NUKE THIS BASTARD IMMEDIATELY. A lot of us browse at -1 so we can conscienciously moderate. I have rescued a few worthwhile comments from unfair -1's they reached just because enough assholes disagreed with them.
Or maybe, all we need is a -2 score level for outright spam with the presumption that if enough moderators pile on to lower something to -2, it's not even worth seeing that shit.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:3, Interesting)
The Truth is Never Libelous
Wrong. The truth is an absolute defense against libel in the United States of America . But if you read a little closer you will see that this woman is British, and British libel and defamation laws [wikipedia.org] are nothing like their American counterparts. Scientists have been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus". The fact that his statement is demonstrably true didn't help at all. British libel laws are not only outrageous for their own citizens, but can also be applied to extraterritorial statements, so there is an entire legal sub-industry of Libel Tourism. [wikipedia.org]
As Americans, we should never take our freedoms for granted. Just glance across the pond for an example of a country at the bottom of the slippery slope.
Barristers and Solicitors (Score:4, Interesting)
-- Those who can represent themselves in place of the client and conduct litigation on behalf of the client are called solicitors [wikipedia.org], and solicitors are attorneys at law [wikipedia.org].
-- A barrister is not an attorney and is usually forbidden, either by law or professional rules or both, from "conducting" litigation. This means that, while the barrister speaks on the client's behalf in court, he or she can do so only when instructed by a solicitor or certain other qualified professional clients, such as patent agents.
-- A lawyer is one "learned in the law", and can be an attorney, counsel, or a solicitor.
-- An is the official name for lawyers in certain jurisdictions, e.g. Japan + Sri Lanka + South Africa + U.S.A. [wikipedia.org]
This happens all the time (Score:2, Interesting)
When I am asked to deal with a)lawyers or b)foreign clients, I always ask for money up front. Both types of clients have a nasty habit of stiffing you on the bill. It gets old, really quick.
Blair codifying corporate libel powers (Score:1, Interesting)
Tony Blair, via his LibCon puppets, is bringing massively expanded powers for companies to sue individuals for libel in the UK. British citizens, thanks to changes introduced by Blair, can get no free legal assistance when fighting libel claims, regardless of their financial situation.
Blair's goal is that ordinary citizens are held accountable, with every increasing penalties, for every word they utter. This includes conversations in private or online regardless of context or circumstance. Holding an opinion that contradicts current government doctrine is a criminal offence (such opinions are deemed 'offensive' and against 'public order'). And YES, people are arrested, fined and/or imprisoned for such crimes in the UK. Not a massive number (although the numbers are increasing at an astonishing rate), but enough to ensure everyone in the UK is VERY cautious about what they say, or to whom.
The extension of the police-state to 'corporate' protection is controversial, but Blair now has enough power in the House of Commons that he can get any new law passed. Every one of these police state initiatives was originally proposed when Blair formally held position of Prime Minister, but Blair's power-base was still growing at the time, and the public were growing as sick of his face and voice as they did with the monster Thatcher. Blair simply stepped behind the curtain, and completed his take-over of the other two main political parties in the UK. Now Labour, Conservative and Liberal vote in unison, whether bashing the poor, bashing students, introducing new police-state powers or promoting new wars.
Blair's new libel laws are an extension of the 'press censorship' initiatives that do NOT censor the mainstream press, but DO censor online activities of ordinary people. Blair wants a public expression like "Monsanto is evil" to be impossible in the UK. In a UK libel case, you have to pay for the lawyers of the other side, regardless of how expensive their services may be. So Blair is giving Monsanto the power to run the same con as the record companies do with file sharers. Namely either 1) pay Monsanto thousands of pounds and make a public apology, or 2) pay hundreds of thousands of pounds AHEAD of the libel case.
Blair's goal is the equivalent of 1984's 'Newspeak'- except it is the old Soviet model of total self-censorship. British children are now educated to believe there are TWO kinds of opinions- the right ones, and opinions that are offensive and therefore 'criminal'. Kids are taught their duty is to identify the 'consensus', and to work hard to be part of it, while shunning 'thought criminals'.
Re:I don't understand the point. (Score:5, Interesting)
"I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions."
It's even better than that. The guy's lawyer has expressly stated that the libel case is on behalf of him personally, and that the company is NOT part of the case.
"I act for Mr Kirby Kearns, the Claimant in the above libel action and am responding to the email you sent to a company of which he is a Director – the company is not a party to the action."
As communicated to Popehat -- http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/15/in-which-a-london-solicitor-threatens-me/
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh please. There's no shortage of people, both American and not, criticizing the US for all kinds of things on this forum, and much of it rightfully so: wars, imperialism, the war on drugs, drone bombings, Guantanamo, corporatism run amok, corruption, "corporations are people", no universal health care, warrantless wiretapping, slow and expensive ISP and cellular service, I could go on and on.
For a refreshing change, we've hit on an issue where, for once, the US really does things right (free speech, and libel laws that actually make a lot of sense--something derogatory has to be proven not only untrue but also malicious for you to get in trouble for it). It's fine that Americans are proud of this.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:0, Interesting)
US had to break some treaties in order to prevent US citizens from being abused by the UK courts for speech which is very much acceptable in the US
Let me paraphrase in an off-topic manner: US had to deny signing some treaties in order to prevent US soldiers from being abused by the courts of the world for war crimes which are very much acceptable in the US.
Zing!
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm definitely not making the assumption that the US system is better. It's fairly clear to me, though, that "free speech" isn't held in quite the same regard in English courts as it is in the US.
As an aside, I (a US citizen) was once threatened (by a UK entity) with legal action for comments that appeared on a website I run. The website is US-based, and the comments were firmly in the realm of opinion, and thus perfectly legal under US law. At the time, the law shielding US citizens from abuse by UK courts had been passed by congress, but not yet signed into law. I was actually sweating it for a couple weeks while I waited for the bill to be signed into law.