Has Britain learned anything from Jimmy Savile (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile) or have they just accepted this is how it will be? Because their libel laws feel like an important part of how something like that stays covered up.
Or are they even allowed to have a serious conversation about it given those very libel laws?
In theory (and this is a complex layered subject with many pros and cons that would easily occupy a book) British libel law forces a serious conversation as to firmly allege that Jimmy Saville fiddles children would require hard proof that Jimmy Saville fiddles children.
ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts.
On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court.
Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.
Libel laws are an important defensive weapon against those would threaten the sanctity of the monarchy with claims that the royal family is anything but flawless and worthy of worship.
The poster you’re replying to appears to mount a some degree of defense of UK law in response to several comments here, though they also use a disparaging name for one of the prominent law firms. It’s hard to tell just what their point is, except to say “You need to understand more to properly criticize UK law, so keep your mouth shut.”
Which, no, we don’t, and we won’t. The effects of UK libel and slander law have been long discussed and demonstrated, so much so that there is a US federal law whose explicit purpose is to enjoin enforcement of UK libel and slander law in US jurisdictions.
If they've learned anything, they haven't put those lessons into practice. Wealthy abusers continue to use the UK's accuser-biased libel laws to silence those who speak out (falsely accusing them of libel in a system that is rigged against the little guys.)
Its a little bit more complicated since we aren’t talking about a criminal offense so its not you vs your country. Its more like does the person who you allegedly libeled have standing to sue you in a court which has jurisdiction over you/your assets. If that person legitimately has some presence in your country they might.
This lot are Carter Fuck (the Private Eye approved name for C-R). They know rather a lot about the laws in most jurisdictions and obviously ours (UK, well actually England and Wales).
There is nothing that stops, say a Russian from ignoring an English Law firm but they might find a local "issue" turns up from a local law firm, prompted from over here. It will be meticulously researched and couched in local legal terms.
You might like to note that recently a judge in the Russian Federation has declared that a group called "international LGBT public movement" is now outlawed. That group does not really exist per se but it is now a label that can be applied to someone. There are penalties in law from being associated with that group/moniker. I imagine that any responsible person can assert that someone is a member of that (fictional) group and expect justice to be done.
Do I really have to spell out how this goes down? Russia at least declares their "issues". Some other jurisdictions don't bother with those ... niceties.
1. You and your assets can't go to the UK. This might not seem like a biggie to some until you consider that all your flights across the Atlantic cant have a stop in the UK. Also, UK financial institutions, while not the US', have quite a bit of reach.
2. They can pursue you or your assets in other countries. Now, a judge in Italy is unlikely to care what UK courts have to say about an American (since Italy is loath to offend the US) but what if you're merely a Chad citizen (unfortunately, a nobody) in Poland (a massive Anglo ally)?
Something I appreciated from The Economist was this bit
> It seemed legitimate to her (an impression aided by the fact that its co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, had addressed a conference organised by The Economist)
"(Truth is always an absolute defence in libel cases.)"
In US law, yes. But I thought that was not so under English law. "Mansfield said it, it's true as the Bible/The greater the truth, the greater the libel." was an old summary.
Over the years, I've come to the strong view that America's free speech protections - more or less unique in the world - are by far the best model.
Plenty of other countries gesture at the idea of free expression, even in their constitutions, but in practice it doesn't exist. It becomes illegal to "defame" (or even just "insult") someone by merely expressing an opinion, not making a factually defamatory claim. It's an awful way to run a democratic society.
I mean, I could name a bunch of American political podcasts which would have been sued out of existence by the powerful people they joke about in any other country.
Yes, and this is especially relevant recently. Free speech laws can't be simply bolted on when needed.
Also: "British libel law retains something of its aristocratic origins: the person claiming to have been defamed is the one presumed to be telling the truth, unlike in the legal traditions of continental Europe and America." I wonder how true this is about the UK, sounds messed up.
Satire and opinion manages to express itself even in the UK. Give the show "Have I Got News for You" a watch before you assume that freedom of expression is completely dead there. That being said, I'm sure it's tough to feel safe unless you can afford good representation.
But is the satire unpopular or against someone powerful? Btw, I did look the show up, and funny enough first thing I see is a £10,000 fine for a joke they made a long time ago.
Kinda surprised and disappointed given the expansive title ("Britain’s scariest libel firm can pursue anyone, anywhere") that it failed to mention any of the laws taken against this sort of business by other countries, with the textbook example being America's SPEECH Act of 2010 [0]. That law makes any foreign defamation claim unenforceable in the US unless it meets the standards of the First Amendment, regardless of the laws anywhere else in the world. Foreigners with lesser free speech protections can pound sand. We could do better with a strong federal anti-SLAPP law, currently how expensive and invasive anti-speech lawsuits are varies wildly more by what state one is resident in then it should. Nevertheless the protections are still quite solid, and I didn't see in the article something to justify the lede. That's not to say the abysmal state of defamation practice in the UK isn't still painful, but it doesn't mean they have total global reach either.
However, if you don't hire an expensive lawyer in the UK you'll loose to a default judgement.
Then your trips to Europe become very difficult since you have to avoid a layover in Heathrow.
On top of that, if the firm is aggressive enough, they can pursue you or your assets in other countries w/out a SPEECH act. Then, even if eventually thrown out, you have to deal with that.
Sorry, what are they going to do to you on a layover in Heathrow, surely even if you enter the UK they won't arrest you due to a default judgement in a civil case? They can not be that far gone.
Not due to the default judgement itself, but due to the finding of contempt that comes when you don't comply with the order that came with the judgement.
FWIW, Although I haven't been the the UK in decades and have no connection there I'm a target of two UK lawsuits alleging hundreds of billions of dollars in damages on basis that would be difficult to impossible to domesticate where I reside.
I had to make the difficult decision either to ignore them and potentially risk arrest if I found myself in the UK and risk my assets being seized if they ever ended up under control of a UK exposed entity (perhaps due to an instution I use being acquired by a UK entity), or to fight back and expose myself to legal costs which could be ruinous even in the (likely) case that I win, creating a serious risk that I could lose by virtue of running out of funds. (A situation the claimant has even bragged publicly that he intended to create).
Fortunately there was charitable support able to cover the legal costs, which made the decision somewhat easier but nothing will ever compensate me for the astronomical amount of my time the litigation has taken up and the stress its subjected me to.
The SPEECH act is a big improvement over the prior situation, but unfortunately the ability to abuse the UK for SLAPP isn't limited to libel lawsuits. I think we need a generalization of the SPEECH act that bars the enforcement (and turns obtaining a judgement into a domestic tort) of foreign judgements in jurisdictions that don't have comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections.
But even with that there remain fundamental challenges. As a victim of malicious litigation I'd like it if the courts better regarded bringing false litigation as a tort and had more facilities to require the claimant to post security for not just cost but for substantial damages in case their claim is found to be false. But policy like that would dramatically reduce access to justice especially for parties with limited means. You're not going to sue big-bad who genuinely harmed you if losing means paying huge damages, especially if you'd have to post security for it.
There is probably no complete solution to using the courts abusively.
We're fortunate to live in mature civilizations that are stable and safe enough to give us an illusion that the universe is somehow fundamentally fair. But it isn't: nature is red in tooth and claw though we try to hide it. Sometimes a bad person can harm you and yours gravely and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except try to pick up the pieces and move on. This is obviously true when you consider attack with a gun or a knife (nothing can undo a death or serious injury), but anything can be a weapon if you're creative enough-- including a court.
... obviously. And a lot of flights that do stop in the UK. The point is you lose the flexibility and you have to make sure every time you book a flight
Not to mention that you are always anxious you don't have an inflight incident. Bad weather, medical emergency (there are 300 people aboard), mechanical issues, etc
The EU is working on an EU-wide SLAPP directive that will shield you from this and allow you to reclaim costs incurred elsewhere (clearly with England in mind).
In many respects, England (and Wales, but not Scotland) is still run for the benefit of the feudal aristocracy, parasites descended from thugs. No property taxes (only stamp duty on transfers the feudal never incur), the archaic practice of leasehold even Tories admit is feudal, or the numerous tax breaks accorded the monarchy.
Wasn't everyone already avoiding layovers in Heathrow? There are plenty of direct flights to European countries and connecting in Dublin or Amsterdam or Madrid is fine.
> In the 16th century an additional crime of seditious libel was introduced – statements intended to incite rebellion against a state or monarch. This was punishable by the removal of the offender’s hand. An offence of slander entailed the removal of one’s ears.
> Few would argue that libel law shouldn’t exist.
Well, maybe more people should argue that, after all, mostly the other few benefit from all this huge power imbalance of being able to chop someone's hand off (or do the modern financial ruin alternative)
My understanding of the strength of British Libel laws is due to them being used to eliminate dueling which was quite prevelant amongst the officer classes in the British Army. They took two measures. One was to ban the military pension of an officer killed in a duel going to their wife, the other was tough libel laws that enabled matters of honour to be settled in a court rather than through a duel. Both of these measures combined to virtually eliminate dueling.
Part of it was probably a wider historical shift as well. Early in American history dueling was a problem too. Alexander Hamilton might have been a president if he hadn’t felt compelled to dual and lost.
50 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadOr are they even allowed to have a serious conversation about it given those very libel laws?
ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts.
On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court.
Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.
The UK's libel laws scared off journalists who wanted to blow the whistle on Jimmy Savile. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/28/jimmy-savile... https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/savile-story...
Your comment is completely out of line and violates the commenting guidelines. Are you trying to be ironic or something?
Which, no, we don’t, and we won’t. The effects of UK libel and slander law have been long discussed and demonstrated, so much so that there is a US federal law whose explicit purpose is to enjoin enforcement of UK libel and slander law in US jurisdictions.
Everybody can write an angry letter to 'anyone, anywhere'.
Can Carter-Ruck actually force 'anyone, anywhere' to cease & desist / defend themselves at court?
What stops a resident of say Hong Kong or Russia or Paraguay from totally ignoring said angry letter?
There is nothing that stops, say a Russian from ignoring an English Law firm but they might find a local "issue" turns up from a local law firm, prompted from over here. It will be meticulously researched and couched in local legal terms.
You might like to note that recently a judge in the Russian Federation has declared that a group called "international LGBT public movement" is now outlawed. That group does not really exist per se but it is now a label that can be applied to someone. There are penalties in law from being associated with that group/moniker. I imagine that any responsible person can assert that someone is a member of that (fictional) group and expect justice to be done.
Do I really have to spell out how this goes down? Russia at least declares their "issues". Some other jurisdictions don't bother with those ... niceties.
2. They can pursue you or your assets in other countries. Now, a judge in Italy is unlikely to care what UK courts have to say about an American (since Italy is loath to offend the US) but what if you're merely a Chad citizen (unfortunately, a nobody) in Poland (a massive Anglo ally)?
> It seemed legitimate to her (an impression aided by the fact that its co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, had addressed a conference organised by The Economist)
Admitting their own role in this saga was nice.
In US law, yes. But I thought that was not so under English law. "Mansfield said it, it's true as the Bible/The greater the truth, the greater the libel." was an old summary.
Plenty of other countries gesture at the idea of free expression, even in their constitutions, but in practice it doesn't exist. It becomes illegal to "defame" (or even just "insult") someone by merely expressing an opinion, not making a factually defamatory claim. It's an awful way to run a democratic society.
I mean, I could name a bunch of American political podcasts which would have been sued out of existence by the powerful people they joke about in any other country.
Also: "British libel law retains something of its aristocratic origins: the person claiming to have been defamed is the one presumed to be telling the truth, unlike in the legal traditions of continental Europe and America." I wonder how true this is about the UK, sounds messed up.
Chomsky is quite open that the US is the only country in the world where he can be as critical of the sovereign as he is.
Frankly it's a big reason I finally decided to become American.
----
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
Then your trips to Europe become very difficult since you have to avoid a layover in Heathrow.
On top of that, if the firm is aggressive enough, they can pursue you or your assets in other countries w/out a SPEECH act. Then, even if eventually thrown out, you have to deal with that.
I had to make the difficult decision either to ignore them and potentially risk arrest if I found myself in the UK and risk my assets being seized if they ever ended up under control of a UK exposed entity (perhaps due to an instution I use being acquired by a UK entity), or to fight back and expose myself to legal costs which could be ruinous even in the (likely) case that I win, creating a serious risk that I could lose by virtue of running out of funds. (A situation the claimant has even bragged publicly that he intended to create).
Fortunately there was charitable support able to cover the legal costs, which made the decision somewhat easier but nothing will ever compensate me for the astronomical amount of my time the litigation has taken up and the stress its subjected me to.
The SPEECH act is a big improvement over the prior situation, but unfortunately the ability to abuse the UK for SLAPP isn't limited to libel lawsuits. I think we need a generalization of the SPEECH act that bars the enforcement (and turns obtaining a judgement into a domestic tort) of foreign judgements in jurisdictions that don't have comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections.
But even with that there remain fundamental challenges. As a victim of malicious litigation I'd like it if the courts better regarded bringing false litigation as a tort and had more facilities to require the claimant to post security for not just cost but for substantial damages in case their claim is found to be false. But policy like that would dramatically reduce access to justice especially for parties with limited means. You're not going to sue big-bad who genuinely harmed you if losing means paying huge damages, especially if you'd have to post security for it.
There is probably no complete solution to using the courts abusively.
We're fortunate to live in mature civilizations that are stable and safe enough to give us an illusion that the universe is somehow fundamentally fair. But it isn't: nature is red in tooth and claw though we try to hide it. Sometimes a bad person can harm you and yours gravely and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except try to pick up the pieces and move on. This is obviously true when you consider attack with a gun or a knife (nothing can undo a death or serious injury), but anything can be a weapon if you're creative enough-- including a court.
But that doesn't mean we can't try to do better.
Not to mention that you are always anxious you don't have an inflight incident. Bad weather, medical emergency (there are 300 people aboard), mechanical issues, etc
https://archive.ph/Mlzp7
In many respects, England (and Wales, but not Scotland) is still run for the benefit of the feudal aristocracy, parasites descended from thugs. No property taxes (only stamp duty on transfers the feudal never incur), the archaic practice of leasehold even Tories admit is feudal, or the numerous tax breaks accorded the monarchy.
Losers. This guy bills at €1000 / hour.
https://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/grosch-dr-marcus/
> Few would argue that libel law shouldn’t exist.
Well, maybe more people should argue that, after all, mostly the other few benefit from all this huge power imbalance of being able to chop someone's hand off (or do the modern financial ruin alternative)