Libel law discussion thread

[ultimobici]

It's very simple.
Potentially libellous would be to say "Rider X is doping"
More acceptable and less likely to land one in court would be to say "I believe Rider X may be doping"
One is free to express ones opinion but directly stating an opinion as fact is potentially libellous. Doesn't matter if you're in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotlant, The US or Norway. If you're posting here you are open to action in an English court. So, by all means, express your opinion(s) but perhaps avoid stating them as fact.

 

[ultimobici]

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).



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?

To the first bolded statement, what the hell has that to do with anything except to be offensive?

As for the second, you could say that you believe something until the cows come home. Saying you believe something is not libellous. Not hard is it?

 

[thehog]

It's very simple.
Potentially libellous would be to say "Rider X is doping"
More acceptable and less likely to land one in court would be to say "I believe Rider X may be doping"

One is free to express ones opinion but directly stating an opinion as fact is potentially libellous. Doesn't matter if you're in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotlant, The US or Norway. If you're posting here you are open to action in an English court. So, by all means, express your opinion(s) but perhaps avoid stating them as fact.

Disagree.

You'd need to establish what the term 'doping' means.

Never tested positive is fact. Doping. Hmmmmm. Much harder to defend a position of 'no doping'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's very simple.
Potentially libellous would be to say "Rider X is doping"
More acceptable and less likely to land one in court would be to say "I believe Rider X may be doping"
One is free to express ones opinion but directly stating an opinion as fact is potentially libellous. Doesn't matter if you're in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotlant, The US or Norway. If you're posting here you are open to action in an English court. So, by all means, express your opinion(s) but perhaps avoid stating them as fact.

No, it's even simpler than that, this is all straw started by some Sky fans to attempt to stop what is written here.

What our resident lawyers from Google & Bing have avoided answering is how do they know what is written is indeed libelous. Answer is they don't.
And the only way the forum, post or poster would ever be "subject to" any court is only if someone took a case against one of the above.

 

[ToreBear]

It's very simple.
Potentially libellous would be to say "Rider X is doping"
More acceptable and less likely to land one in court would be to say "I believe Rider X may be doping"
One is free to express ones opinion but directly stating an opinion as fact is potentially libellous. Doesn't matter if you're in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotlant, The US or Norway. If you're posting here you are open to action in an English court. So, by all means, express your opinion(s) but perhaps avoid stating them as fact.

It's whether I'm open to action in an English court which is the question, I believe I am not, especially under the new E&W rules.

But if an English court took the case I could appeal until I lost in the English system. I would likely struggle to defend myself due to lack of finances. However I could sue the UK government for failing to protect my rights. In this case I would likely win in the ECtHR, and the UK taxpayer would have to pay me damages. See Mclibel case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_and_Morris_v_United_Kingdom


Perhaps I might be able to sue the ones who sue me in a Norwegian court, and since the Norwegian system sees libel as a criminal offense, the person suing me could risk being the subject of a European arrest warrant. Ask Julian Assange how that works.

This site may have it's servers in the UK, but it's audience is global, it is for me anyway accessed through a .com domain.

 

[ToreBear]

To the first bolded statement, what the hell has that to do with anything except to be offensive?

As for the second, you could say that you believe something until the cows come home. Saying you believe something is not libellous. Not hard is it?

To the first bolded statement:
Was that offensive? Well it's a reference to history, please tell me how you find it offensive? I am curious.

As for the second:
Then we agree, but under previous UK libel law, I'm not so sure that is a correct interpretation. Perhaps MartinVickers could tell us more. I think one of the many problem with the previous libel laws that made them a laughing stock, were that they were in defiance of common sense.

 

[thehog]

I will sue anyone who says Sky are 'clean'.

 

[martinvickers]

It's whether I'm open to action in an English court which is the question, I believe I am not, especially under the new E&W rules.

But if an English court took the case I could appeal until I lost in the English system. I would likely struggle to defend myself due to lack of finances. However I could sue the UK government for failing to protect my rights. In this case I would likely win in the ECtHR, and the UK taxpayer would have to pay me damages. See Mclibel case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_and_Morris_v_United_Kingdom

I fear you misunderstand the McLibel case.

It's not about protecting your from the libel laws, but about equality of arms. the breach of Article 10 is entirely linked to the breach of Article 6, not freestanding.

Seriously. go read the case report, it's freely available.

Perhaps I might be able to sue the ones who sue me in a Norwegian court, and since the Norwegian system sees libel as a criminal offense, the person suing me could risk being the subject of a European arrest warrant. Ask Julian Assange how that works.

This site may have it's servers in the UK, but it's audience is global, it is for me anyway accessed through a .com domain.

The .com domain is meaningless - it's simply a computer code, replacing less memorable numbers; it makes absolutely no difference to which jurisdictions you might be amenable in.

Honestly, ToreBear, don't play this game if you aren't armed...

 

[martinvickers]

To the first bolded statement, what the hell has that to do with anything except to be offensive?

As for the second, you could say that you believe something until the cows come home. Saying you believe something is not libellous. Not hard is it?

It's ok, thanks - on this one, I can see a bileless joke when I see one- it's just a gag on the historic tendancies of the vikings in ireland, and I suspect made tongue in cheek. Stand down, soldier ;-)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Sky dope, sue me.

 

[martinvickers]

No, it's even simpler than that, this is all straw started by some Sky fans to attempt to stop what is written here.

What our resident lawyers from Google & Bing have avoided answering is how do they know what is written is indeed libelous. Answer is they don't.
And the only way the forum, post or poster would ever be "subject to" any court is only if someone took a case against one of the above.

Dr. Don't play this game unarmed. Seriously.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. Don't play this game unarmed. Seriously.

Why don't you go play this game on some other thread, martin - or start a new one?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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

UK libel laws are idiotic.

Fortunately, what I write is not subjected to idiotic libel laws.

 

[martinvickers]

To the first bolded statement:
Was that offensive? Well it's a reference to history, please tell me how you find it offensive? I am curious.

As for the second:
Then we agree, but under previous UK libel law, I'm not so sure that is a correct interpretation. Perhaps MartinVickers could tell us more. I think one of the many problem with the previous libel laws that made them a laughing stock, were that they were in defiance of common sense.

I think it was a laughing stock politically - legally it wasn't particularly bizarre - the issue was E&W (and NI, for that matter) had a mix of plaintiff friendly law, and defendent unfriendly costs (lack of legal aid, etc) which came to a political head in the McLibel trial. Politicians didn't like London being the centre of international libel activity, espcially as a proxy for Americans annoyed by the First amendment.

Will NI change? Not so sure. London doesn't really need the fees Celebs and Corps will pay for the Carter Rucks of this world. Belfast is far less snooty about it. We'll see, I suppose.

The main E&W change is "significant financial loss" - it's worth noting Tweed si already making noises about multinationals operating out of Belfast to take advantage of corporate friendly unchanged libel laws. If NI (i.e. Sammy Wilson) ever get round to passing Ireland style corporation tax levels, the combination might be very attractive.

 

[martinvickers]

Why don't you go play this game on some other thread, martin - or start a new one?

Now, now, Dr. don't huff. I didn't start this strand of discussion, and I was clear from the outset I thought a practical outworking in reality was unlikely. I certainly wasn't suggesting suits from Sky or anyone else going left right and centre.

But I reserve the right to respond to existing threads as i see fit, Dr. If Mods want to move it, they know how.

 

[martinvickers]

UK libel laws are idiotic.

Fortunately, what I write is not subjected to idiotic libel laws.

What state are you in, then? I know some states have attempted to exclude enforcement of E&W judgements on their soil, but that's perhaps a different thing...

 

[oldcrank]

Sky are 'clean'.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Now, now, Dr. don't huff. I didn't start this strand of discussion, and I was clear from the outset I thought a practical outworking in reality was unlikely. I certainly wasn't suggesting suits from Sky or anyone else going left right and centre.

But I reserve the right to respond to existing threads as i see fit, Dr. If Mods want to move it, they know how.

Now now martin - thats not quite true, your first foray on this issue was to tell us that the forum subject to a court of law. (Hi Judge Judy)

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

As I stated earlier, this legal side bar about "libel" is nothing more than some Sky fans attempting to silence critics.

 

[oldcrank]

Most Jewish people, most Muslims and many Rastas
believe the hog is 'not clean'.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sky's performances are very dirty, dodgy and not normal.

 

[martinvickers]

Now now martin - thats not quite true, your first foray on this issue was to tell us that the forum subject to a court of law. (Hi Judge Judy)


As I stated earlier, this legal side bar about "libel" is nothing more than some Sky fans attempting to silence critics.

My first foray, as you say, was clearly a RESPONSE. A response to someone, I cannot recall (;-)) stating that this was a forum, not a court of law. I didn't introduce courts. I responded. Correctly, as it happens.

And as I've made clear elsewhere, whatever else i may be, a Sky fan I am not.

Now let's not play vortex pedantry, Dr. I have a lunch to consume.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

My first foray, as you say, was clearly a RESPONSE. A response to someone, I cannot recall (;-)) stating that this was a forum, not a court of law. I didn't introduce courts. I responded. Correctly, as it happens.

Your "RESPONSE" was and is straw.
This is a forum, not a court of Law.

And as I've made clear elsewhere, whatever else i may be, a Sky fan I am not.

Now let's not play vortex pedantry, Dr. I have a lunch to consume.

You already played, lucky that it was a late lunch, eh.

 

[thehog]

Sky are 'clean'.

See you in court!

 

[ToreBear]

I fear you misunderstand the McLibel case.

It's not about protecting your from the libel laws, but about equality of arms. the breach of Article 10 is entirely linked to the breach of Article 6, not freestanding.

Seriously. go read the case report, it's freely available.

Yes I'm aware of the equality of arms are the most important. I assume this has not changed until possibly the new law. Since the McLibel case came about in 2005, changing such a big thing takes a bit of time. I have'nt read the case file, It's probably written to complex for me to understand without investing too much effort. My impression is that judges prefer to not rule on more than they have to. In this case they could focus on the fair trail aspec(article 6). And skip issues relating to article 10. I might be wrong of course. I'm going by rules of thumb as to how I think things work.

The .com domain is meaningless - it's simply a computer code, replacing less memorable numbers; it makes absolutely no difference to which jurisdictions you might be amenable in.

Honestly, ToreBear, don't play this game if you aren't armed...

I can only play with the tools that are available to me. Ce la vie. Anyway I don't play to win, I play to be convinced I'm wrong, so I can adapt my understanding.

As for domain name etc. The wikipedia article on the new law mentions jurisdiction, and I can see a UK court is not neccesarily the best place for a case against me. Something I think a UK court might agree with. But I might be wrong, then again, so might you since the law is so new I suspect you are not as yet well versed in it as the previous one.

It's ok, thanks - on this one, I can see a bileless joke when I see one- it's just a gag on the historic tendancies of the vikings in ireland, and I suspect made tongue in cheek. Stand down, soldier ;-)

It was a gag of course. And I would never bring an axe to Ireland. You cant bring an axe as carry on and no way am I paying the extra baggage fee on the airplane.

I think it was a laughing stock politically - legally it wasn't particularly bizarre - the issue was E&W (and NI, for that matter) had a mix of plaintiff friendly law, and defendent unfriendly costs (lack of legal aid, etc) which came to a political head in the McLibel trial. Politicians didn't like London being the centre of international libel activity, espcially as a proxy for Americans annoyed by the First amendment.

Will NI change? Not so sure. London doesn't really need the fees Celebs and Corps will pay for the Carter Rucks of this world. Belfast is far less snooty about it. We'll see, I suppose.

The main E&W change is "significant financial loss" - it's worth noting Tweed si already making noises about multinationals operating out of Belfast to take advantage of corporate friendly unchanged libel laws. If NI (i.e. Sammy Wilson) ever get round to passing Ireland style corporation tax levels, the combination might be very attractive.

I would not expect lawyers to laugh at law. They are only responsible for it's application. Politicians one might say are responsible for it's consequences. They are the ones who get laughed at, not the lawyers.

Hmm it sounds like Belfast is eying an influx of lucrative cases. Perhaps there might even become a legal bubble. Interesting times ahead.

As for the corporation taxes, I think that will be a difficult option soon. With the big governments in Europe needing tax revenue, Irelands corporation taxes will become vulnerable. I think it's only a matter of time before that happens. Also I have my doubts whether the low corporate tax has been so beneficial to Ireland as many assume.

But do you have any comments on my first long post?

 

[BigClinicIsGoingToJail]

I can confirm that sky and other members of the pro peloton are drawing up suits to file in British courts that will target many key members of the clinic. Two names that repeatedly come up in the suits are "TheHog" and "BroDeal". Richie Porte took particular offence to being likened to Ricco by TheHog. Bradley Wiggins has singled out BroDeal for claiming he dopes like Riis but is a worse rider.

More worrying for the clinic is the suits will try to make the clinic criminally liable for the behaviour of these users. The two mentioned users have over ten thousand posts whilst other users are permanently banned for trivial offences often without any reason given. Moderators like "Netserk" quote the infamous trolls in their post signature, implicitly endorcing their behaviour. Time and time again, the suits ask why these users are banned from every other forum on the Internet - ChewbaccaD is even banned from twitter - yet they are celebrated on this one forum for spouting their false and libellous beliefs.

The suits are expected to be completed and filed by early next month.