Comments on: A warning to the incautious http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/ Lecturer, geologist and author: official website Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:39:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Anita http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/comment-page-1/#comment-653 Anita Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:24:32 +0000 http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/#comment-653 (I'm not in the UK, so I can say this :) ): taking someone to court over the word "bogus" is completely insane. (I'm not in the UK, so I can say this :) ): taking someone to court over the word "bogus" is completely insane.

]]> By: Boaz http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/comment-page-1/#comment-651 Boaz Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:06:07 +0000 http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/#comment-651 The thing that I have seen is that the defendant is presumed guilty under British libel law, rather than innocent, and there appear to be fewer defenses. For instance, back before the Revolution, there was a case in (I think) Massachusetts charging someone with libel, and the main defense was that the statements were true. The prosecutor objected to that defense, saying that 'something may be a libel even if it is true', and the defense attorney countered by saying that being untruthful was part of the definition. End result: judge sided with the prosecution, but the jury sided with the defense.<br /><br />Differing standards are also causing a phenomenon called libel tourism. The first example that springs to mind is again, unfortunately, British, where a Muslim purchased a copy or copies of a book in the U.S.A., then took them back to the U.K., and a Saudi(?) sheik sued for libel regarding documented accusations that he funded terrorists. (I'm going off of memory here, and so I may have minor mistakes.) I know that the suit was fought on grounds (among others) of lack of jurisdiction, but the court ruled that it was a libel, and ordered the author to pay a large fine. (The author had not been to the U.K. at all, nor has gone since then IIRC, and has not paid the fine, so could conceivably be arrested.)<br /><br />For another fun one, look at Canada's hate-speech provisions for their Human Rights Commissions. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have quite a bit on them from the perspective of those sued for hate speech and fighting back. As they have noted, and as Singh has found out, the process is part of the punishment. The thing that I have seen is that the defendant is presumed guilty under British libel law, rather than innocent, and there appear to be fewer defenses. For instance, back before the Revolution, there was a case in (I think) Massachusetts charging someone with libel, and the main defense was that the statements were true. The prosecutor objected to that defense, saying that 'something may be a libel even if it is true', and the defense attorney countered by saying that being untruthful was part of the definition. End result: judge sided with the prosecution, but the jury sided with the defense.

Differing standards are also causing a phenomenon called libel tourism. The first example that springs to mind is again, unfortunately, British, where a Muslim purchased a copy or copies of a book in the U.S.A., then took them back to the U.K., and a Saudi(?) sheik sued for libel regarding documented accusations that he funded terrorists. (I'm going off of memory here, and so I may have minor mistakes.) I know that the suit was fought on grounds (among others) of lack of jurisdiction, but the court ruled that it was a libel, and ordered the author to pay a large fine. (The author had not been to the U.K. at all, nor has gone since then IIRC, and has not paid the fine, so could conceivably be arrested.)

For another fun one, look at Canada's hate-speech provisions for their Human Rights Commissions. Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn have quite a bit on them from the perspective of those sued for hate speech and fighting back. As they have noted, and as Singh has found out, the process is part of the punishment.

]]> By: Stephanie http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/comment-page-1/#comment-650 Stephanie Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:22:58 +0000 http://www.chriswalley.net/2009/09/18/a-warning-to-the-incautious/#comment-650 I just have to say that it's not just in the UK that you have to worry about being sued; I've noticed that people like to sue each other quite a bit in the States too. Though the cases I've heard about tend to be more about "hate speech" than "libel" (or is it the same thing?).<br />Thankfully I haven't noticed much of that here in France - in fact, people tend to voice negative opinions (some of which could probably be considered potentially libellous in the UK) very loudly. Which, I will admit, can be very annoying at times. But at least people feel freer to express their opinions, at least on most things.<br />Hopefully that made sense; brain's a tad fried right now. I just have to say that it's not just in the UK that you have to worry about being sued; I've noticed that people like to sue each other quite a bit in the States too. Though the cases I've heard about tend to be more about "hate speech" than "libel" (or is it the same thing?).
Thankfully I haven't noticed much of that here in France – in fact, people tend to voice negative opinions (some of which could probably be considered potentially libellous in the UK) very loudly. Which, I will admit, can be very annoying at times. But at least people feel freer to express their opinions, at least on most things.
Hopefully that made sense; brain's a tad fried right now.

]]>