Libel law discussion thread

[martinvickers]

It's a simple question, how do you know if these allegations are libelous are not?
Unless you are one of these accused, then you don't.

This is an Internet forum, not a court of law.

No-one suggested it was a court of law. But it is SUBJECT to a court of law, as Sally Bercow just found out.

 

[Franklin]

No-one suggested it was a court of law. But it is SUBJECT to a court of law, as Sally Bercow just found out.

Scaremongering? There are quite a few things at hand that makes this utterly different. (And yet less than I thought).

First off, we are indeed subject under UK law. I actually wonder if that invalidates the remainder of my post

Whereas Sally has no support for her claim, we have a framework which makes our "allegations" plausible. There is a nice case in the Netherlands about a coplaint against a top-Lawyer who was called "Maffia-Buddy" in the newspaper. The lawyer lost the libel case suit handily, as he could be seen as consorting with mobsters.

In our case we have very clear undeniable links with doping. Nobody can deny Leinders is a doping doctor and nobody can deny he worked at Sky. Nobody can deny that doping doctors at Teams generally mean doping practices. Nobody can deny there is still a huge doping problem. These are easy to research facts which show that an allegation isn't ungrounded.

Quite simply put: This is not an allegation that Sky kills puppies (which was basically what Sally did i her tweets). This is an allegation directed about their job, their attitude and behavior.

And I wonder if this matters as I thought it did

 

[ultimobici]

Scaremongering. There are quite a few things at hand that makes this utterly different.

First off, we are not subject under UK law. But let's just gloss over that detail:

Whereas Sally has no support for her claim, we have a framework which makes our "allegations" plausible. There is a nice case in the Netherlands about a coplaint against a top-Lawyer who was called "Maffia-Buddy" in the newspaper. The lawyer lost the libel case suit handily, as he could be seen as consorting with mobsters.

In our case we have very clear undeniable links with doping. Nobody can deny Leinders is a doping doctor and nobody can deny he worked at Sky. Nobody can deny that doping doctors at Teams generally mean doping practices. Nobody can deny there is still a huge doping problem. These are easy to research facts which show that an allegation isn't ungrounded.

Quite simply put: This is not an allegation that Sky kills puppies (which was basically what Sally did i her tweets). This is an allegation directed about their job, their attitude and behavior.

You with your interest in the justice system really should know better.

You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.

 

[Franklin]

You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.

And you are right. I thought this was Australian... not sure why I had that idea/

 

[BroDeal]

You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.

Should be good for a laugh when the mighty British military is sent to the U.S. to enforce a judgement.

 

[ultimobici]

Should be good for a laugh when the mighty British military is sent to the U.S. to enforce a judgement.

Our military may not be big but at least they can recognise the difference between an ally and a foe before pulling the trigger.

 

[ToreBear]

You might want to think again. By posting on this forum you quite possibly are subject to UK libel law. This is a British website and Sky & Wiggins are British.

I don't see how they can apply to people not subject to UK law. Anyway the UK or is it English(?) libel law is most probably unconstitutional.

 

[ultimobici]

I don't see how they can apply to people not subject to UK law. Anyway the UK or is it English(?) libel law is most probably unconstitutional.

You do not need to be a citizen of a country or for that matter set foot in a country to be in breach of its laws. In the age of the internet on is virtually in the county that the person or persons they are communicating with as well as the country in which the server the website they are on is hosted.

As for whether English libel law is unconstitutional, how do you surmise that? It can only be unconstitutional if applied to an action that has no English connection. But as this forum is hosted on a British website it automatically applies.

 

[sittingbison]

ever heard of QB7?

Good luck Team Sky trying to disprove "libelous" doping allegations or insunuations after half their team - Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, Dodger et al - was sent packing for doping links. Just shows they shouldn't have lost Sir Daves non-doping policy tome, and done a little more due diligence with hiring staff

 

[ToreBear]

You do not need to be a citizen of a country or for that matter set foot in a country to be in breach of its laws. In the age of the internet on is virtually in the county that the person or persons they are communicating with as well as the country in which the server the website they are on is hosted.

As for whether English libel law is unconstitutional, how do you surmise that? It can only be unconstitutional if applied to an action that has no English connection. But as this forum is hosted on a British website it automatically applies.

Who is were is a complex issue. I could go into that or just say English libel law is unconstitutional even if only applied to English subjects.

The English libel laws and the English(uk?) constitution(do you really have one?) is subservient to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"We are Europe. We will add your distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

Muahahaha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

 

[martinvickers]

Who is were is a complex issue. I could go into that or just say English libel law is unconstitutional even if only applied to English subjects.

The English libel laws and the English(uk?) constitution(do you really have one?) is subservient to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"We are Europe. We will add your distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile."

Muahahaha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

1. The ECHR is not a constitution. Calling something unconstitutional in these circumstances exposes your own ignorance.

2. England, or the UK, hasn't had 'subjects' in decades.

3. Article 10 does not protect against libel.

Article 10, paragraph 2

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Seriously, guys, you're unlikely to be at much risk, simply because you don't matter much, and the McAlpine's of this world with money and anger to sue left, right and centre are few and far between.

But 100% safe? No chance.

Not least because, while Westminster recently (april) brought in some legislation to reduce 'libel tourism' in England and Wales (and for your information, E&W is the proper name of the jurisdiction, not England and not UK, you'll see why in a second) , the idea of suing someone in ANY jurisidiction the offending content was published (and internet forums are published world wide for these purposes), no such law was brought in for Northern Ireland.

Which happens to be both the home and work place of Paul Tweed, one of the most successsful international defamation lawyers in the world. And quite possibly the new libel tourism central.

As for Future's possible liability, normally a web forum or publisher is not responsible for the content posted on their site as they did not 'induc'e it....but running the Clinic, a part of a moderated forum dedicated only to doping and doping allegations, may or may not be 'normal'. Still, I'm sure they have a decent legal staff to sort these things out for them and keep them on the right side of the law. I wonder how many posters have the same...

 

[martinvickers]

ever heard of QB7?

Good luck Team Sky trying to disprove "libelous" doping allegations or insunuations after half their team - Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, Dodger et al - was sent packing for doping links. Just shows they shouldn't have lost Sir Daves non-doping policy tome, and done a little more due diligence with hiring staff

Libel 101 - Sky don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it. In libel, the burden falls on the person who makes the statement, i.e. the defendant, not the person bringing the suit, plaintiff.

And do rememeber, all those 'sent packing' were, officially, sent packing for 'historic' doping links, not for what they did at Sky.

Which is why all these "i think they are doping' statements are broadly fine - they are statements of opinion, expressed as such, and fair comment, especially in the history of the sport. But once you declare things are '100% facts' - we are in a rather different place.

 

[SeriousSam]

The British libel law used to be absolutely horrendous, protecting the powerful and wealthy from criticism, stifling free expression and encouraging "libel tourism". Recently, a new defamation bill was passed improving things. Probably still far from perfect tho, especially wrt the internet.

 

[Cyivel]

Start a libel law thread or something.

 

[martinvickers]

The British libel law used to be absolutely horrendous, protecting the powerful and wealthy from criticism, stifling free expression and encouraging "libel tourism". Recently, a new defamation bill was passed improving things. Probably still far from perfect tho, especially wrt the internet.

The problem, Sam, is the new law isn't a British law, it's an England and Wales law, and for very limited purposes, Scotland. It doesn't apply in Northern Ireland, much to the joy of Mr Tweed and moreover, his clients.

"Defamation Act 2013

...

17 Short title, extent and commencement

(1)This Act may be cited as the Defamation Act 2013.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), this Act extends to England and Wales only.

(3)The following provisions also extend to Scotland—
(a)section 6;
(b)section 7(9);
(c)section 15;
(d)section 16(5) (in so far as it relates to sections 6 and 7(9));
(e)this section.

Full text freely available at the UK Statute law Database.

For the sake of completeness, from the irish Statute law database

Defamation Act 2009 (Ireland)

 

[blackcat]

ever heard of QB7?

Good luck Team Sky trying to disprove "libelous" doping allegations or insunuations after half their team - Leinders, Yates, Julich, Barry, Dodger et al - was sent packing for doping links. Just shows they shouldn't have lost Sir Daves non-doping policy tome, and done a little more due diligence with hiring staff

nah, they did their due diligence.

just their aims were different. they thought they had it covered with their PR. but when their PR conflicted with reality, they needed to re-set the markers.

 

[horsinabout]

1. The ECHR is not a constitution. Calling something unconstitutional in these circumstances exposes your own ignorance.

2. England, or the UK, hasn't had 'subjects' in decades.

3. Article 10 does not protect against libel.



Seriously, guys, you're unlikely to be at much risk, simply because you don't matter much, and the McAlpine's of this world with money and anger to sue left, right and centre are few and far between.

But 100% safe? No chance.

Not least because, while Westminster recently (april) brought in some legislation to reduce 'libel tourism' in England and Wales (and for your information, E&W is the proper name of the jurisdiction, not England and not UK, you'll see why in a second) , the idea of suing someone in ANY jurisidiction the offending content was published (and internet forums are published world wide for these purposes), no such law was brought in for Northern Ireland.

Which happens to be both the home and work place of Paul Tweed, one of the most successsful international defamation lawyers in the world. And quite possibly the new libel tourism central.

As for Future's possible liability, normally a web forum or publisher is not responsible for the content posted on their site as they did not 'induc'e it....but running the Clinic, a part of a moderated forum dedicated only to doping and doping allegations, may or may not be 'normal'. Still, I'm sure they have a decent legal staff to sort these things out for them and keep them on the right side of the law. I wonder how many posters have the same...

Just keep on putting a ???? after everything - cover your ****. Did he/she or didn't he/she????

And we are such small fry anyway, no one gives a monkey's what we say except Brailsford, who doesn't care much for our innuendo's.

 

[horsinabout]

Libel 101 - Sky don't have to disprove it. You have to prove it. In libel, the burden falls on the person who makes the statement, i.e. the defendant, not the person bringing the suit, plaintiff.

And do rememeber, all those 'sent packing' were, officially, sent packing for 'historic' doping links, not for what they did at Sky.

Which is why all these "i think they are doping' statements are broadly fine - they are statements of opinion, expressed as such, and fair comment, especially in the history of the sport. But once you declare things are '100% facts' - we are in a rather different place.

Presactamundo....

If you say Wiggins doping with Farrari is fact 100% - you better have the paper work to back it up.

 

[martinvickers]

Just keep on putting a ???? after everything - cover your ****. Did he/she or didn't he/she????

That kinda of nudge, nudge didn't save Sally Bercow.

And we are such small fry anyway, no one gives a monkey's what we say except Brailsford, who doesn't care much for our innuendo's.

The McAlpine twitters thought that too.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

So where are we after all those post about some libel law ****ee in england and wales? can we still say we think they are dirty or that sky are dirty like other teams?

 

[ebandit]

zam

So where are we after all those post about some libel law ****ee in england and wales? can we still say we think they are dirty or that sky are dirty like other teams?

zam no member would be prosecuted for saying 'sky dope'

however it is more factual to quantify such a statement with 'i believe'

like? who cares what is said here.......................however members making bs
statements as fact deserve to be treated with disdain by other members

Mark L

 

[thehog]

So where are we after all those post about some libel law ****ee in england and wales? can we still say we think they are dirty or that sky are dirty like other teams?

Sky won't be suing anybody.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Sky won't be suing anybody.

well, they may sue the parasite doctor should Froome fail to win TdF.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

zam no member would be prosecuted for saying 'sky dope'

however it is more factual to quantify such a statement with 'i believe'

like? who cares what is said here.......................however members making bs
statements as fact deserve to be treated with disdain by other members

Mark L

Yeah, clinic regulars know what is bs and who is saying it so why the need to constantly bring up some libel stuff in england and wales as this is an international forum.

 

[ToreBear]

1. The ECHR is not a constitution. Calling something unconstitutional in these circumstances exposes your own ignorance.

2. England, or the UK, hasn't had 'subjects' in decades.

3. Article 10 does not protect against libel.

What you're calling me ignorant?! I demand my honor be restored by Holmgang!

By the Laws of my jurisdiction you have 7 days to appear in front of me.

But your only a lawyer you say? well, I'm sure an apropriate axe can be provided to you.

Wait You are Irish? Never mind, I will stop by after I have satisfied the earthly needs of the nuns at your local nunnery.

How is this Saturday for you?

Oh wait, I might be a tad ignorant about finer legal terminologies, hence you might be correct in your assertions.


Anyway, I'm not a lawyer nor do I have much education in law, but I do know how societies work, and how they are kept together, and that is what law is for, so I hope you can bear with me.

1.
Constitution is a term heavily used in the US, I think, and if one would ask someone what it does, the answer might reasonably expected to be: "a document that protects my rights".

The ECHR is to my understanding such a document, and it is incorporated into the law of all nations who have signed up to it. If there is a conflict between a national law and the ECHR, it is the ECHR which is supreme.

2.
Just out of curiosity what would be the correct term?

3. Here I disagree with you're interpretation of article 10.

The law is about balancing interests. Article 10 is designed to secure freedom of speech. Here there might arise a conflict. Ones right of free speech vs. the rights of others and their reputations.

It is the role of the European Court of Human Rights to balance these conflicting interests.

You forgot to highlight a precondition in article 10: "and are necessary in a democratic society"

Now my understanding is that the libel laws in the UK(the one before the new one) have had problems with this essential precondition.

Establishing weather something is necessary in a democratic society is difficult, since what democracy is, is hard to define. Especially since in my opinion it is a moving target.

The UK libel laws have come under increasing pressure from ECtHR, so much so that they are an international laughing stock.

In January 2011, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that he was committed to introducing legislation that would turn "English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint".

Time(and judgments in the ECtHR) will tell whether it will be a blueprint, but it seems a step in the right direction after having quickly read through the wikipedia page on the new law.

Now it's only Northern Irish law thats a laughing stock. But they would likely follow E&W when they get around to it won't they?

An interesting fact is that In Norway committing libel is a crime, and you can end up in one of hour horrid prisons for up to six months. (though since it's a crime, the government also pays your defense).

Seriously, guys, you're unlikely to be at much risk, simply because you don't matter much, and the McAlpine's of this world with money and anger to sue left, right and centre are few and far between.

But 100% safe? No chance.

Not least because, while Westminster recently (april) brought in some legislation to reduce 'libel tourism' in England and Wales (and for your information, E&W is the proper name of the jurisdiction, not England and not UK, you'll see why in a second) , the idea of suing someone in ANY jurisidiction the offending content was published (and internet forums are published world wide for these purposes), no such law was brought in for Northern Ireland.

Which happens to be both the home and work place of Paul Tweed, one of the most successsful international defamation lawyers in the world. And quite possibly the new libel tourism central.

As for Future's possible liability, normally a web forum or publisher is not responsible for the content posted on their site as they did not 'induc'e it....but running the Clinic, a part of a moderated forum dedicated only to doping and doping allegations, may or may not be 'normal'. Still, I'm sure they have a decent legal staff to sort these things out for them and keep them on the right side of the law. I wonder how many posters have the same...

Interesting about the new law, it' seems to have added protections for our forum discussions, also it seems stricter on definition of jurisdiction. Meaning I'm even safer from UK law, though prison in Norway is another matter.

Anyway it's very dependent on the will to pursue, and that could be about cost of litigation, and in which jurisdiction the court feels the case belongs. Me posting on a .com site should IMHO mean the new law denies jurisdiction over any case against me in a E&W court.

As for the Mcalpine thing (just read about it on wikipedia), I don't think accusing a professional cyclist of doping should be compared to accusing a politician of pedophilia.

As for Future, the new law seems to make things a bit easier for them.

There was a case of deformation in a web forum in Norway a while back and the plaintiff lost. I would think the new UK law will likely follow the same pattern.


Sorry if my thoughts are unclear, I'm not a native of the language and not a lawyer.

As for Wiggo. As far as I understand libel law I could in theory say: " I believe Wiggo Is a doper. In theory, because if I would be called to testify I would either have to lie to the court, or admit that I don't believe it. Either could lead me into trouble.(Jail in Norway)

As for the Hogs "100% fact", thats another matter. Perhaps hoggy uses a different definition of fact than the rest of us?