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."
Truth is the best defence (Score:2)
If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
Re:Truth is the best defence (Score:5, Insightful)
If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
people without money don't receive justice against the people buying laws.
Re:Truth is the best defence (Score:5, Informative)
English common law represents a thousand tears of experience administering justice, it would be unwise to throw chunks of it away based on a case that hasn't even gone to court yet.
Re: Truth is the best defence (Score:3, Informative)
Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Truth is the best defence (Score:5, Insightful)
But this case has not gone to court yet, and her solicitor is persuing it no-win no-fee, which implies he believes she's on the winning side.
It's a myth that truth isn's a defense against libel in the UK. If you prove that what you said is true, then you win the case.
The myth seems to come about because the burden of proof is on the person who made the comment to prove the truth of the statement, not the accuser of libel to disprove it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law [wikipedia.org]
Here, banking records will easily prove her to be telling the truth or not. I suspect this is simply a company trying to bully her with a meritless law-suit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is not always a defence against libel in the UK. Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.
Which actually makes some sense because defamation (via libel or slander) it the act of damaging someones reputation not necessarily by lying. For example if I ran around and told everyone that the someone was having an affair, it still damages their reputation whether it's true or not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel [reference.com]
libel - defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamation [reference.com]
defamation - the ac
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand the point you are making
Then I'll type slower for you. :}
You can still inflict unjustified injury without lying. Presenting true facts with a malicious interpretation or inference can be defamation. For example if the drug store gave you the wrong change back, your technically correct if you take out a full page ad announcing the store cheats its customers but you are in fact defaming the store.
Or as in this article, if Mrs Kemp simply stated the fact instead of ranting about how dishonest the company tried to cheat her then she
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are you serious? Are people honestly OK with this over there?
If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?
It's true! I don't understand how the law could punish me for bringing something horrible to light just because the guy might actually
Re: (Score:3)
Are you serious? Are people honestly OK with this over there?
If I publicly state the CEO of a company is essentially stealing from a voluntary funding program inside said company (think donation jar) for orphans and using it to buy 3 course meals for himself, because I'm angry it's happening and want the world to see how horrible he is, can I seriously be sued for defamation?
It's true! I don't understand how the law could punish me for bringing something horrible to light just because the guy might actually need to face the shame associated with his actions.
As long as you can prove it's true, you can defend any action he brings for libel in the UK.
If you can't prove it's true, then yes he is entitled to damages for your falsely maligning him.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confused. Malicious intent can undermine a defense based on fair comment - i.e. that the publisher was expressing a reasonably held opinion. Malicious intent does not undermine a defense of truth. See this [ehow.co.uk] and this [independen...book.co.uk].
Note that I am not a lawyer. This is just what I could gather from five minutes with the google.
Re: (Score:2)
Publishing the truth with intent to damage or for malicious purpose can also be libel.
Even when publishing the truth about a group/company/mp/whatever that is causing great harm to people, apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
Kind of. The way it works is it has to create a false belief, even if its true. Let me give you an example.
Lets say for a made up example Barrack Obama has asthma, and uses a ventolin puffer, and lets say in his rushed life he isnt using a preventative. Well docs advise against using a ventolin puffer and no preventative, but its something legal, and common, its just poor management.
Fox news goes to air and claims "Barrack Obama revealed to be a dependent drug abuser".
Well lets see. He IS using a drug, spec
Wrong (was Re:Correct). (Score:5, Insightful)
Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.
An interesting attack on U.K. libel law might be for foreigners to sue various MPs for things they've said.
Wrong, on all points. Comprehensively.
I know that Slashdot is now primarily a place for the immature and ill-informed to run off at the mouth on topics of which they know little, but that was a particularly clueless contribution.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit more complicated than that with England and Wales. Wales is effectively governed by English law after the final conquest of Wales back in the 16th century. England and Wales is effectively one jurisdiction, under the law courts of England and Wales. However, with devolution and the Welsh assembly, Wales can pass its own laws in certain areas, but the enforcement of which is still under the joint jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't even have to prove it was true in the UK, merely that you had reasonable grounds to believe it was true - this is why Lord McAlpine's case is on pretty shakey grounds and why he dropped it against many bloggers, because given the fact most of them could prove they believed he was a paedophile because they'd heard it from normally authoritive sources (i.e. the media and prominent public figures) he'd have no way to counter their evidence that this was the case. This is also why he's continued his c
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't understand this. The dictionary flat out defines libel as a published statement that is FALSE and damages someone's reputation. Do they not actually call it libel in the UK? I mean, if something that hurts your reputation (but is TRUE) is somehow wrong/punishable, then I guess that's fine (no it isn't - it's stupid), but calling it "libel" when it has nothing to do with the word "libel" makes . . . no . . . . fucking sense whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is no defense against libel in the U.K.
Not true. Truth is a defense, as long as it's provable.
The issue with UK defamation law is that burden of proof falls on the accused.
A foreign company filing such a suit is a novel approach though.
I wonder whether defamation or hate crime would win if the two went head to head....
Re: (Score:3)
A foreign company filing such a suit is a novel approach though.
Not at all, it's called, "forum shopping," and it made England a popular destination for libel lawsuits for a number of reasons.
Evidence submitted by the Media Law Resource Centre (MLRC) [the-statio...fice.co.uk]
New rules to discourage 'libel tourism' in Britain [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
If it were in the US, that would be true. But she is in the UK. And in the UK, truth is not an absolute defense against libel charges.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be so in other countries, but in England? No.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If what she said is true then she has nothing to worry about. However she'll have to be able to prove it's true.
Civil claims are ruinously expensive no matter what(even best case, a jurisdiction with robust speech protections and an anti-SLAPP statute with teeth, she'd need somebody to take the case on contingency, and have a sufficiently flexible schedule that 'Oh, just getting embroiled in an ongoing court case' won't, say, get her fired). Also, you might be thinking of American libel law. Over on her Britannic Majesty's side of the pond, the state of libel law is notoriously ghastly.
Re: (Score:2)
Under English law, the defendant has the burden of proof to show that his or her statement is not defamatory. So what the GP said is absolutely correct. However, it will be very costly for the defendant to do so under the current legal system, and is not practical to do so unless you have serious money on your side.
So in theory the legal system is designed to prevent libellous statements by putting the burden of proof on the defendant, however in practice, English libel laws are often used to silence critic
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, no.
GP did NOT say "not defamatory", he said "not true".
Therein lies the problem with English libel law - even if it is provably true, it can still be libel if it is "defamatory".
Unlike in the USA, where "truth" trumps "defamatory"....
The only problem with your eloquent and largely grammatical post is that it's complete bollocks.
In English law, if you can prove it's true, it's not libel. People do have problems proving things, and the burden of proof is on the defendant, but that's a different issue.
And libel is, by definition, defamatory. Defamation is slander if it's spoken, libel otherwise.
This is a classic libel case (Score:4, Insightful)
While I personally don't like the existence of libel laws, this is not the case of misusing it to censor criticism or somebody getting into trouble for an innocent joke. If the company can prove that they payed her promptly then this is libel, otherwise it's not and she can sue them back for wrongful accusation. Nobody has a right not to get sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true at all. However, as you say: This is Britain.
Even if they win, the courts are very likely to award £1 damages and no costs. Judges wont want to bankrupt a woman over a single twitter comment, especially if it was true.
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: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: (Score:2)
Sir, I humbly request you not troll this discussion forum by contradicting yourself so blatantly. No good can come of it.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot QCs - Queen's Counsel.
Popehat picked this one up last week (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on your definition of "Prompt" (Score:2)
I guess it really Depends on your definition of "Prompt" either legally or culturally. In some cultures payment of invoices after 30-120 days is considered normal business practice.
Re:Depends on your definition of "Prompt" (Score:4, Informative)
The contract should specify payment terms. Clearly a prompt payment is one that is within the time scale in the contract. One day later is not prompt.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it really Depends on your definition of "Prompt" either legally or culturally. In some cultures payment of invoices after 30-120 days is considered normal business practice.
Based on the bios [resolutionproductions.tv], I'd say that this isn't a cultural misunderstanding(unless 'self-satisfied marketing flacks who refer to themselves as "creatives"' are a 'culture' now).
Somone should tell the company about a woman (Score:3, Insightful)
in Malibu that goes by the name of Mrs Streisand.
Unfair courts (Score:2)
Mrs Kemp said she could not afford legal representation, and feared the law suit might ruin her financially.
More than half the population in the United States cannot afford an attorney to go as far as representing them in a civil suit. I suspect it's even worse in Britain. The court systems are thus fundamentally unfair just because of that aspect alone. I don't know what the best fix is, but a number of ideas have been suggested. One of them is to treat all suits between corporations and people under procedural rules that simplify the process and allows the judge to block sneaky things that corporations usua
Re:Unfair courts (Score:4, Insightful)
My understanding is that it's common in the UK for the court to award legal costs to the winner of the civil case, even if it's the defendent. In this particular case, the defendant has legal advice already, but they're working under an arrangement where they will not charge if the case is lost... and I suspect that if the case is won, the money for her defence will end up coming out of the plaintiff's wallet.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that if what she said is true, all she needed was to present the court with relevant bank statements, I'm failing to see the risk.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't dealt with the court system before, in any country, but I'm guessing that in practice things are more involved than simply showing up in court and proving that what you said is true. For example, maybe she made some statements that could be legally argued are her opinion. Maybe the other side claim that these statements which were her opinion, were defamatory. And maybe the legal jargon is complex enough that she never realizes that they were making this claim, and therefore never makes a simpl
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand the point. (Score:5, Informative)
You have no sympathy for a large company trying to bully a woman out of 50,000 units of money -- over a claim about them not paying 150 units of money. In other words - if you said that I withheld a dollar from you, it would then be fair to claim that I caused $333 of damage to you? Really?
It isn't a "large company". It's this guy, personally. [linkedin.com]
I don't know how large his company is; but behind every corporate veil, there is some asshole making the decisions.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite right.
It's a shifty company trying to use the legal system for strategic reasons.
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:I don't understand the point. (Score:5, Informative)
In other words: what is this Director trying to pull ? Something like, when he looses the case, claiming that he as a person has no money to pay whatever punishment the court deems to impose on him ?
Well, if he doesn't live in the EU then the defendant can demand security of costs. That means the plaintiff has to put funds for her defense into escrow in the EU before the court will hear the case. If he loses, that money is forfeit. If he does live in the EU, then not paying any awards issued by the court will not turn out well for him.
English libel law is a bit over the top, but for the most part the legal system is far better at deterring SLAPP suits and such than the US is.
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks you don't understand how "court cases" work, especially in libel cases in the UK.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It is as unexpected a pairing as Barack Bush
Not really, if you think about how similar Bush and Obama have been. On foreign policy, Obama mainly continued Bush's foreign policy. He expanded drone strikes. On domestic issues, Bush was more to the left than you would expect. He had a huge expansion of medicare, for example. Dick Cheney supported gay marriage before Obama did (he also flip-flopped while he was still in office).
Re: (Score:2)
Technically this is libel; but slander too can damage one's reputation.
Re: Am I the only one...... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree completely Mr. Child Molester...
Re: (Score:2)
A) People are easily convinced of falsehoods, and nowhere near so easily convinced otherwise when the truth comes to light.
B) Companies that can afford to throw tens of thousands of dollars/sterling/euros at someone for complaining about less than two hundred can just as easily afford public relations efforts to concoct and reinforce damaging lies about people they feel are a threat, feeding back into A.
Re: (Score:2)
....who thinks slander is a strange thing to ban legally? As a skeptic it seems both epistemically and pragmatically difficult to work with such laws, and I feel we should try and create unlegislated social pressure to help the truth float to the surface instead.
The theory is based largely on the...unimpressive... history of 'social pressure to help the truth float to the surface instead'. Unless you really suck at character assassination, you should be able to get a juicy lie into circulation enormously faster, further, and more durably than any mundane and tedious truth.
(Now, of course, some slander/libel/sedition/etc. laws are pretty specifically aimed at "Don't say mean things about People More Important Than You, especially if they are true, and those are a s
Re: (Score:2)
I know. The people who believe random rumors and respond to them in a way that harms the individual the rumors speak of seem to always get away, just like those who trample others in crowded theaters.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Lawyers, judges, and laws are the implements of conservatism. Lefty shit would be to run a mob into her home to nonviolently stab her to death.
Lawyers (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely true. It's also true that these are the implements of liberalism. In short, they are the implements of those in power.
More to the point: the world doesn't just seem to be run by lawyers, it largely is.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lefty shit protects the people and the free speech so tha
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, plutocracy is plutocracy and libertarianism is libertarianism. The idea that you should be free to live your life and accept the consequences for you actions is a very libertarian idea, which contrasts with plutocracy where you are not free to live your life but you are required to accept the consequences for your actions. I'm really tired of people redefining opposing political ideologies whenever it's convenient.
Please make an effort to become educated about what you're arguing for or against before y
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not redefining political ideologies. They are already redefined. I'm just using the most common modern definition of them. If you don't like that, go change the language, don't complain to the person using it correctly that you disagree with the definition. Go move to France and get on the committee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarian: Someone who disagrees with everyone else, including other libertarians.
All the "which quadrant are you in" tests put me in the libertarian quadrant, but apparently they are all wrong, because I've never met a libertarian I've agreed with.
Re: (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 st
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists have NOT been successfully sued for stating that homeopathy is "bogus. Sued, yes. Successfully, no. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh [wikipedia.org]
Yes he was successfully sued. He only "won" because he appealed and the plaintiffs withdrew their case because of the bad publicity in the tabloids (where the homeopathy practitioners apparently get most of their clients).
British justice: 0
British tabloids: 1
Re: (Score:3)
In today's life lesson, you learn the difference between two separate types of bogus health care - homeopathy and chiropractic care.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
Chiropractic care isn't bogus when used for what it was designed to do—correcting posture and forcing tight muscles to release so that they don't cause strain in further muscles, resulting in a chain reaction of back pain that leaves people in serious pain.
When used to treat back/neck pain, headaches resulting from tight neck muscles, pinched nerves, and other similar problems, with the exception of physical therapy (much more expensive), it is pretty much the only form of medical care that actually has a good history of success. The cracking of the back also releases endorphins, which make your back feel less sore, which further aids in healing by reducing the tendency to compensate for the sore muscles (which can injure other muscles).
In other words, the mechanism by which chiropractic care functions, at least for those purposes, is well understood and fully supported by medical science, unlike homeopathy, whose mechanism for working is believed to be limited to the placebo effect.... :-)
Of course, when used to treat non-spine-related problems like heart disease and gingivitis, yes, chiropractic care is bogus, in much the same way that antibiotic care is bogus as a treatment for dandruff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Insightful)
Define "subluxation", in an objective and measurable way.
When you make your living treating the scientific equivalent of Bad Spine Spirits(tm), you just might be a quack.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Chiropractic is bogus. It wasn't designed to correct posture or "force tight muscles to release", it was designed to cure completely unrelated illnesses. Which it doesn't do. Any success it may have in treating minor back pain is accidental.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
The big problem for chiropractic care is that their are too many quacks. As you say, the mechanisms by which it works is well understood and fully supported by medical science. Unfortunately, even when people go for treatments that do work, many chiropractors will add a little hocus pocus to raise the bill.
A chiropractor told me; "if a chiropractor tells you that you need to keep going to see them on a regular basis indefinitely then they are a quack. If the chiropractor does some manipulations, gets you to come back again a week or so later then tells you that you are done they aren't a quack."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The world doesn't revolve around you
For me it does, believe it or not.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an idea: stop trying to make everything about the US. The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".
He has a point, though. The UK libel / defamation laws are appalling. So much so that the 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.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone can threaten anyone else with legal action. The organisation I work for (based in the UK, operating in the UK) has received legal threats from companies in India, referring to Indian and US law... we politely replied that we would be complying with English law and that was that.
Baseless legal threats are bad, and should, in theory, lead to English lawyers (who are heavil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The world doesn't revolve around you: you don't have to interject about how proud you are of your "country".
You're correct. It's the Universe that revolves around me. Unless I'm not spinning... That's the basic idea behind relativity. Also, I fail to share your primitive concept of "countries" and borders -- We've just got to get you out into space: You can't see the borders from among the stars...
These are shows staring Earthlings of the English speaking variety and thus share a familiar setting with their largest target demographic's general location. I'd like to see more shows taking place in other regi
Re: (Score:3)
This is the Alliteration Police, Hand over the alliteration tables right now! ;p
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:5, Informative)
Before you get all jingoistic about the state of justice in UK, consider that we also look across the pond in horror at how your legal system treats ordinary people. Both seem to be borrowing the worst from each other.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
Re: (Score:2)
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
Yes, but those people are morons. Believe me, I could cherry-pick some frightening statements by Brits from some of the international forums I frequent that would tend to suggest that the UK is full of complete nincompoops. It would be completely slanted, of course, and so would prove nothing.
Just like your observation about people screaming about the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Before you get all jingoistic about the state of justice in UK, consider that we also look across the pond in horror at how your legal system treats ordinary people. Both seem to be borrowing the worst from each other.
How many comments here are along the lines of "the Constitution is dead"? At least you have one to give you some faint hope.
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised the USA hasn't adopted UK style libel laws. Just think how much money the lawyers would make!! And almost all politicians are former lawyers, you'd think they'd look out for their buddies.
Why would they make it easier for their political opponents to sue them? It'd make election time a lot quieter that's for certain.
Re:The Truth is Never Libelous (Score:5, Informative)
I am not a lawyer. That said, do you have anything to back this up with?
Certainly there's one advantage to the English law in that if you're faced with a frivolous suit you can contest it and if you win the other side will typically bear your costs. In the US if you're sued you need to defend the case at your own expense.
You seem to suggest that truth is not a defense under English law. Everything I have read suggests otherwise. Can you point to an instance of someone actually being punished for making a statement the court found to be true? Certainly the US laws provide greater defenses for a statement that would be classified as an opinion, but truth does appear to be an affirmative defense in England.
A claim of defamation is defeated if the defendant proves that the statement was true. [wikipedia.org]
The main defence to a libel action is ‘justification' i.e. being able to prove that the defamatory allegation is true. [independen...book.co.uk]
It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true. It is not necessary for a defendant to show that there was a public interest in publication and it does not matter whether he or she acted maliciously. [yourrights.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You don't have to look beyond your own borders. The "Constitution Free Zone", the TSA, warrantless wiretaps, racial profiling. The UK has issues. Canada has issues. So do other countries. But the US is hardly exemplary or exceptional. It's darkly and deeply flawed, disguised by rabid nationalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The patients' rights movement (part of the civil rights movement) emptied many of those facilities before Reagan came along. He merely stopped paying for empty buildings.
Re: (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 se
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real lesson to be learned here is (Score:4, Insightful)
Why, and let this company screw her over?
Should you not leave negative reviews on Amazon or Ebay?
Being able to tell the world about your experience with a company, is a good form of consumer protection, as it gives the company a good reason to make sure a customer leaves satisfied. If she'd positive tweet, this company may have received extra business so it can work both ways.
The real lesson here is for British politicians and courts to tidy up our messy libel system (assuming she is telling the truth) so companies using these tactics are out of pocket so they think twice about filing these kind of law suits.