Libel law discussion thread

[ChewbaccaD]

Tuesday?

....

Self-deprecation is a charming quality.

 

[thehog]

Self-deprecation is a charming quality.

I'm lovin' the Sky suit predications.

The Clinic 12 might have to share a cell with Armstrong if the Sky lawyers have their way.

 

[sittingbison]

It does cut both ways.

I'm sure Sky wouldn't want Ashenden being called as a witness.

Or deposing Sky cyclists about various activities.

Or a subpoena for blood profiles.

Skybots can control a forum. They can't control a court of law.

They'd have a hell of a time not allowing Ashenden testimony or coming up with a reason not to provide blood profiles.

Wiggins did state that they should be made public.

Or maybe you'd just show the jury a video of Froome. Before and after.

Perhaps place a set of scales in the court room. Have the Sky cyclists weight themselves. That would be interesting.

God. It would never even get that far.

Good post hoggy, reminds me of...

ever heard of QB7?...

Good post sittingbison

 

[Zam_Olyas]

videos like this should not be allowed to be uploaded by using the libel laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2_NpHUiIdc

 

[Zam_Olyas]

People who uploads morris dance on youtube should be sued using the libel laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao

 

[Zam_Olyas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao morris dance uploaders should be sued using the libel laws.

 

[ebandit]

cheers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjLATAUwao morris dance uploaders should be sued using the libel laws.

cheers Zam makes me proud to be english.................reminds me of sea shanties ................aye! those were the days no need for libel laws

our navy sailed forth to shut up detractors with a quick broadside

Mark L

 

[thehog]

Good post hoggy, reminds me of...




Good post sittingbison

I can see the jury burst out laughing when the counsel for the defendants plays the Froome video of him going sideways.

The judge would request a 30 minute recess whilst he tries to restore order in the courtroom.

A packed courtroom would be in fits of laughter.

After the judge restored order the defendants lawyers calls Dave Brailsford to demonstrate how Sky wash their hands. A makeshift washbasin is brought into the courtroom and Dave shows how to clean your hands the right way.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

This thread should have been in the clinic, as it was about clinic matters that brought up this libel sh!te..by Martin Vickers and Ianfra... i think. Now we can't talk about clinic matters in this sub-forum.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I can see the jury burst out laughing when the counsel for the defendants plays the Froome video of him going sideways.

The judge would request a 30 minute recess whilst he tries to restore order in the courtroom.

A packed courtroom would be in fits of laughter.

After the judge restored order the defendants lawyers calls Dave Brailsford to demonstrate how Sky wash their hands. A makeshift washbasin is brought into the courtroom and Dave shows how to clean your hands the right way.

What would be funnier would be you trying to prove Wiggins working with Ferrari "100%".

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Your looking for the SPEECH Act 2010. As I thought, it's about enforcement. The key case is here.



Wrong. they may not recognise it because of the Speech Act, and the First amendment. But it is not automatic, and in any event only creates a 'countersuit', which may or may not itself be mutually enforcable.

Personal jurisdiction is covered by a series of laws - the Brussels convention (ignore Brussels II, that's child support), conflict of laws/private international law, and 'choice of forum' laws. Ain't nothing simple about it.



Libel is not only committed where the statement is MADE, it is also committed where the statement is PUBLISHED. That's the problem.

Because where it is published includes, in the case of an internet site, anywhere in the world it is likely to be read and understood - most obviously jurisdictions that share the language.

And the US Consular services may well get you a lawyer, or even, in extremis arrange flights home - but they won't get anything kicked out of a UK court on the basis you've suggested. UK court won't give a damn.

I have looked into the personal jurisdiction question longer and you are incorrect again, it is a simple matter. A US court will not enforce a judgment where the court did not have PJdx over an American citizen. The threshold question is whether the PJdx comported with US PJdx rules and precedent. In this case, I have no minimum contacts nor presence within the UK (and a US court would require this for US PJdx over a foreign individual), so they have no claim of PJdx against me for something I did in the US which was not a crime in the US. Period. It is very simple actually. As The Game pointed out, they might have PJdx over the owners of the servers, but not me.

As for your last charge, that libel is where published and not made, I want to see the case law considering the misinformation in your first two points. So far, I cannot find a case on point in the United States (where I reside) for a situation where the statements I typed were on a computer in the United States, and were merely hosted on a server in a foreign country (not the same country where the case was being brought) could give rise to a libel charge (recognized by US courts) based on where the server was located. That is an untested question in the US. I will not cede the point for a second. I wrote my statements in the US, aand they were not libelous here, so I did not commit libel that a US court would recognize, and unless you can come up with some cases to suggest otherwise (US cases), I am sticking with that point. Again, they may have a case for libel against the owners of the server, but not me.

Please do me a favor in the future and extend the common courtesy of not trying to blow smoke up my a$$ based simply on the fact that I have shown deference to your position. I may only be a law student, but I would suggest that does not mean you can make sh*t up and think it is respectful discourse.

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

I have looked into the personal jurisdiction question longer and you are incorrect again, it is a simple matter. A US court will enforce a judgment where the court did not have PJdx over an American citizen. The threshold question is whether the PJdx comported with US PJdx rules and precedent. In this case, I have no minimum contacts nor presence within the UK (and a US court would require this for US PJdx over a foreign individual), so they have no claim of PJdx against me for something I did in the US which was not a crime in the US. Period. It is very simple actually. As The Game pointed out, they might have PJdx over the owners of the servers, but not me.

As for your last charge, that libel is where published and not made, I want to see the case law considering the misinformation in your first two points. So far, I cannot find a case on point in the United States (where I reside) for a situation where the statements I typed were on a computer in the United States, and were merely hosted on a server in a foreign country (not the same country where the case was being brought) could give rise to a libel charge (recognized by US courts) based on where the server was located. That is an untested question in the US. I will not cede the point for a second. I wrote my statements in the US, aand they were not libelous here, so I did not commit libel that a US court would recognize, and unless you can come up with some cases to suggest otherwise (US cases), I am sticking with that point. Again, they may have a case for libel against the owners of the server, but not me.

Please do me a favor in the future and extend the common courtesy of not trying to blow smoke up my a$$ based simply on the fact that I have shown deference to your position. I may only be a law student, but I would suggest that does not mean you can make sh*t up and think it is respectful discourse.

Mr. Vickers QC may remember this case better than me but about 4 or 5 years ago a Russian national wrote an article in a Russian newspaper about another Russian national. As the article was also online and viewed by a couple of hundred British nationals in Britain a libel action was allowed to proceed in the English Courts by Judge Eady (who was by all accounts a grade 1 ****). I doubt whether any judgement was enforcable by the Russian Courts, but the fact remains that the English Court allowed the action to proceed because the libel was published in the UK electronically.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Mr. Vickers QC may remember this case better than me but about 4 or 5 years ago a Russian national wrote an article in a Russian newspaper about another Russian national. As the article was also online and viewed by a couple of hundred British nationals in Britain a libel action was allowed to proceed in the English Courts by Judge Eady (who was by all accounts a grade 1 ****). I doubt whether any judgement was enforcable by the Russian Courts, but the fact remains that the English Court allowed the action to proceed because the libel was published in the UK electronically.

UK law and courts are idiotic in relation to libel law. That has nothing to do with showing me where US courts would find the UK court had personal jurisdiction, nor that the US courts recognize that an act undertaken in the US that is not a violation of law or civil precedent here is in fact libelous because the statement was hosted somewhere else. You have proven no such thing. I want to see precedent, not some bullsh*t case from the UK where they stretched the boundaries of rational legal precedent far enough to encompass such a case. As you rightly point out, it is likely a Russian court told them to pi$$ off when they tried to enforce the judgment. I know a US court would have.

Nobody here cares about the idiotic laws in the UK. Not US citizens, and certainly not US courts. ONLY where your libel laws comport with ours will a court enforce your judgments. The case we are referring to is not even close. Period.

 

[Ripper]

...

One thing I find truly entertaining about this whole topic is the matter that issues related to Sky are the only ones to have ever (ever) generated such intense discussion about being tried for libel. And the rabid fanboy actions seem to be even more intense than the pharmstrong era (I'm not including MV in this descriptor).

 

[Spencer the Half Wit]

UK law and courts are idiotic in relation to libel law. That has nothing to do with showing me where US courts would find the UK court had personal jurisdiction, nor that the US courts recognize that an act undertaken in the US that is not a violation of law or civil precedent here is in fact libelous because the statement was hosted somewhere else. You have proven no such thing. I want to see precedent, not some bullsh*t case from the UK where they stretched the boundaries of rational legal precedent far enough to encompass such a case. As you rightly point out, it is likely a Russian court told them to pi$$ off when they tried to enforce the judgment. I know a US court would have.

Nobody here cares about the idiotic laws in the UK. Not US citizens, and certainly not US courts. ONLY where your libel laws comport with ours will a court enforce your judgments. The case we are referring to is not even close. Period.

Agree 100%. The UK libel laws are a disgrace, but they are what they are, which is why newspapers in this country would not print anything that is said in the Clinic for fear of being sued. In reality I don't think anyone on this forum has anything to be worried about, as the McLibel case showed that suing someone for libel can be a PR disaster.

 

[martinvickers]

This thread should have been in the clinic, as it was about clinic matters that brought up this libel sh!te..by Martin Vickers and Ianfra... i think. Now we can't talk about clinic matters in this sub-forum.

1. The thread was in the clinic. Mods moved it after complaint.

2. I didn't bring up the Libel issue - i responded to someone else bringing it up, Dr Maserati, I think, though i'm not certain.

 

[Netserk]

1. The thread was in the clinic. Mods moved it after complaint.

2. I didn't bring up the Libel issue - i responded to someone else bringing it up, Dr Maserati, I think, though i'm not certain.

1. This thread was actually created in another sub-forum. The first (many) posts were taken from the Sky thread.

2. It'd been mentioned several times in said thread (and others), but the most recent example (that led to the creation of this thread) started with this:

A bit of rigorous methodology wouldn't hurt, to be honest. I often find the accusations on here bordering on libelous, and photography seems to me just a spurious bit of evidence.

 

[thehog]

1. This thread was actually created in another sub-forum. The first (many) posts were taken from the Sky thread.

2. It'd been mentioned several times in said thread (and others), but the most recent example (that led to the creation of this thread) started with this:

Someone needs to get the word "hearsay" in here somewhere,

So when are the indictments coming down? Before or after the Superbowl? When will Cyclingnews be shutdown by the Sky lawyers?

 

[Ripper]

Agree 100%. The UK libel laws are a disgrace, but they are what they are, which is why newspapers in this country would not print anything that is said in the Clinic for fear of being sued. In reality I don't think anyone on this forum has anything to be worried about, as the McLibel case showed that suing someone for libel can be a PR disaster.

McLibel was also a whole lot easier than going after unknown people from other countries on an obscure internet forum.

Holy crapola is this stuff funny.

The sky fanboy club are a sensitive bunch.

 

[sublimit]

The end result = Big McAmerican corperation total making total twats of themselves in British courts.

Our libel laws are honeytraps for the dumb people that run such companies so they have to figure out that sort of risk in when they decide to hit the courts.

 

[martinvickers]

Mr. Vickers QC may remember this case better than me but about 4 or 5 years ago a Russian national wrote an article in a Russian newspaper about another Russian national. As the article was also online and viewed by a couple of hundred British nationals in Britain a libel action was allowed to proceed in the English Courts by Judge Eady (who was by all accounts a grade 1 ****). I doubt whether any judgement was enforcable by the Russian Courts, but the fact remains that the English Court allowed the action to proceed because the libel was published in the UK electronically.

God, how long have i been off this thread!!

First, Chewie, calm down - "blowing smoke up your a$$"? - that's a pretty ridiculous over-reaction. I'm a lawyer qualified in Ireland and NI, and by extension qualified in E&W. I have never claimed to be a US lawyer. I've been pretty clear about that.

In other words, I'm trying to help you. Not point score.

You are mixing up 'jurisdiction' and 'enforcability'. It's an easy mistake. When you practice in Northern Ireland, you constantly have to look at cross border 'enforcement' issues - which as I stated is usually done through the Brussels Lugano system in Europe.

But we were talking 'jurisdiction' issues. I repeat, 'jurisdiction', not enforcability.

I repeat, the US courts, as a result of the Speech Act, have adopted, wholesale, rules on 'enforcability' of UK libel judgements, that used to apply in a handful of states. Other states did enforce - if they didn't, there would have been no need for the Speech Act.

So far, so unspectacular.

But none of this is relevant to 'jurisdiction', only 'enforcability'.

The US courts run the law IN the US, nowhere else. The law on jurisdiction is clear - the NI courts are entitled to hear any cases where a libel is published online, because that coun ts as publication in NI. The US courts will not 'enforce' such a judgement, by use for a countersuit. But the judgment is still valid, just not automatically enforcable in the US.

As a side note #1 - get some books on 'US private international law' and 'conflict of laws' - the first will be a book on enforcablity within the US, the second on jurisdictional issues across borders. They are, i promise you, different.

Side note number 2# - the laws of a foreign countries are, in a domestic case, questions of fact, rather than questions of law. Which means they are evidenced, not interpreted. Just for info.

And finally, on a side note again, and with all gentleness.

Read what you write. Slowly.

NYT v Sullivan is about Public officials, not public figures. Officials. i.e. people who hold an office. Not the same as public figures, not even close. A politician, an attorney general, a governor, or perhaps even a civil servant - are public OFFICIALS.

Government administrators not= celebrities and people of note.

And with that, my watch is ended. Work is boring enough without taking it home!

Goodnight, seattle.

 

[BroDeal]

Other states did enforce - if they didn't, there would have been no need for the Speech Act.

You mean no need aside from politicians never letting pass an opportunity to puff themselves up by making a meaningless gesture to defend their county's "values," especially when it is done at the expense of foreigners that obviously cannot vote? You are going down the wrong road if you atttribute need with what laws the U.S. Congress passes.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

God, how long have i been off this thread!!

First, Chewie, calm down - "blowing smoke up your a$$"? - that's a pretty ridiculous over-reaction. I'm a lawyer qualified in Ireland and NI, and by extension qualified in E&W. I have never claimed to be a US lawyer. I've been pretty clear about that.

In other words, I'm trying to help you. Not point score.

You are mixing up 'jurisdiction' and 'enforcability'. It's an easy mistake. When you practice in Northern Ireland, you constantly have to look at cross border 'enforcement' issues - which as I stated is usually done through the Brussels Lugano system in Europe.

But we were talking 'jurisdiction' issues. I repeat, 'jurisdiction', not enforcability.

I repeat, the US courts, as a result of the Speech Act, have adopted, wholesale, rules on 'enforcability' of UK libel judgements, that used to apply in a handful of states. Other states did enforce - if they didn't, there would have been no need for the Speech Act.

So far, so unspectacular.

But none of this is relevant to 'jurisdiction', only 'enforcability'.

The US courts run the law IN the US, nowhere else. The law on jurisdiction is clear - the NI courts are entitled to hear any cases where a libel is published online, because that coun ts as publication in NI. The US courts will not 'enforce' such a judgement, by use for a countersuit. But the judgment is still valid, just not automatically enforcable in the US.

As a side note #1 - get some books on 'US private international law' and 'conflict of laws' - the first will be a book on enforcablity within the US, the second on jurisdictional issues across borders. They are, i promise you, different.

Side note number 2# - the laws of a foreign countries are, in a domestic case, questions of fact, rather than questions of law. Which means they are evidenced, not interpreted. Just for info.

And finally, on a side note again, and with all gentleness.

Read what you write. Slowly.

NYT v Sullivan is about Public officials, not public figures. Officials. i.e. people who hold an office. Not the same as public figures, not even close. A politician, an attorney general, a governor, or perhaps even a civil servant - are public OFFICIALS.

Government administrators not= celebrities and people of note.

And with that, my watch is ended. Work is boring enough without taking it home!

Goodnight, seattle.

I was referring to jurisdiction. Read the act you linked to and read where US courts will not recognize a foreign court's jurisdiction over a US citizen if that jurisdiction does not mirror US jurisdictional precedent. As I correctly pointed out, this hypothetical doesn't because of minimum contacts or presence. Sorry, but I was not talking about enforcement. With all gentleness, let me quote the Speech Act of 2010 for you:

Jurisdictional Considerations.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or
enforce a foreign judgment for defamation unless the domestic
court determines that the exercise of personal jurisdiction by
the foreign court comported with the due process requirements
that are imposed on domestic courts by the Constitution of the
United States.
``(2) Burden of establishing exercise of jurisdiction.--The
party seeking recognition or enforcement of the foreign judgment
shall bear the burden of making the showing that the foreign
court's exercise of personal jurisdiction comported with the due
process requirements that are imposed on domestic courts by the
Constitution of the United States.

Here, let me quote you something else you must not have read slowly enough to pick-up on in my previous post directed at the incorrect assertions you are making:

In this instance, we are talking about "public figures" as defined by US case law as: (note that Sky and Wiggins or any other rider would be considered "public figure." If you want the case law on that, let me know.)

Now, Sullivan is the basis for a myriad of cases defining who is and is not a public official or figure, and what is required when some person or entity fits the defined terms. Wiggins and Sky are public figures based on case law, all of which sprung from Sullivan. I can quote the cases for you if you'd like (which quote Sullivan because that case set the standard that you had to show "actual malice." This is a significant point and you missed it.), but I would suggest you just trust me on this one unless you want a plethora of cases to read. Just let me know. Celebrities are CLEARLY AND ABSOLUTELY in the class of "public figures." In fact, so are corporations. I would suggest actually reading US case law before posting.

Lastly, I may be only a law student, but if you are going to make basic mistakes like that, I would cut back on the mildly condescending tone. Several times I have come across attorneys on cycling forums who have thrown the "you are a law student, do some more studying" shtick and most of them were as wrong as you are now. I may be just a student, but I do my homework well enough to not have to take that kind of bullsh*t from an attorney who is pulling things out of his a$$ and thinking his position will wow me enough not to question them. Read that slowly.

Toodles!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You mean no need aside from politicians never letting pass an opportunity to puff themselves up by making a meaningless gesture to defend their county's "values," especially when it is done at the expense of foreigners that obviously cannot vote? You are going down the wrong road if you atttribute need with what laws the U.S. Congress passes.

MV was COMPLETELY wrong on this point. No states would enforce a foreign civil libel judgment against a US citizen if the judgment was an abridgment of constitutional rights. I'm not sure how they do it on his island, but here states cannot stomp on the constitutional rights of citizens because the defendant would appeal to a federal court and have the decision overturned (if the case were not already in federal court). All congress did, as they do in many instances, is codify what was already precedent. If MV had bothered to read the cases I cited, he'd see that.

 

[martinvickers]

I was referring to jurisdiction. Read the act you linked to and read where US courts will not recognize a foreign court's jurisdiction over a US citizen if that jurisdiction does not mirror US jurisdictional precedent. As I correctly pointed out, this hypothetical doesn't because of minimum contacts or presence. Sorry, but I was not talking about enforcement. With all gentleness, let me quote the Speech Act of 2010 for you:



Here, let me quote you something else you must not have read slowly enough to pick-up on in my previous post directed at the incorrect assertions you are making:



Now, Sullivan is the basis for a myriad of cases defining who is and is not a public official or figure, and what is required when some person or entity fits the defined terms. Wiggins and Sky are public figures based on case law, all of which sprung from Sullivan. I can quote the cases for you if you'd like (which quote Sullivan because that case set the standard that you had to show "actual malice." This is a significant point and you missed it.), but I would suggest you just trust me on this one unless you want a plethora of cases to read. Just let me know. Celebrities are CLEARLY AND ABSOLUTELY in the class of "public figures." In fact, so are corporations. I would suggest actually reading US case law before posting.

Lastly, I may be only a law student, but if you are going to make basic mistakes like that, I would cut back on the mildly condescending tone. Several times I have come across attorneys on cycling forums who have thrown the "you are a law student, do some more studying" shtick and most of them were as wrong as you are now. I may be just a student, but I do my homework well enough to not have to take that kind of bullsh*t from an attorney who is pulling things out of his a$$ and thinking his position will wow me enough not to question them. Read that slowly.

Toodles!

Sigh.

Chewie, you're missing the wood for the trees here, on both main points. I've set out the basics as best I can, we've just got to the repeating ourselves stage. When you start telling me to go back and read things I've already read, in detail, the value of the conversation has evaporated.

1. Look, Chewie, I brought up the Speech Act. I actually pointed you, quite deliberately to the best peice of evidence on your side - an act of congress on point! I am fully aware of what it does - in the absolutely simplest terms - it makes UK defamation judgements broadly unenforcable in US Courts. I'm not arguing about enforcability; the law's absolutely clear on that, even to a US law layman like me. It's a direct result of the Bin Mahfouz - Ehrenfeld case, and it creates a level of federal protection by way of couintersuit that was arguably unnecessary in most states because of the First amendment, although that is a matter of considerable contention, not least between Mahfouz and Ehrenfeld!

So all that is absolutely agreed. Wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. (and p.s. the word 'May', way back when, did not denote discretion, (I would have used 'can') - it denotes contingency ; 'if A, then B')

In all seriousness, I'd recommend Richmond and Reynolds on Conflict of Laws as a good exploratory text - at least, it was the one recommended to me back in the day. Better still, if you can, get a Pre 2010 edition for historical reference.

2. Personal jurisdiction is an american term of art. It is not the same as 'jurisdiction' or 'choice of venue' as an area in 'conflict of laws', at least as understood at this end of the pond.

3. You missed my point on sullivan. OF COURSE wiggins et al are 'public figures'. But what they aren't are 'public officials' - they are two completely different things.

The heels are well and truly dug in at this point, so, with respect, I'm not going to devote any more time to this. Sorry, but while it's been pretty good fun, my time for this sort of thing isn't infinite.

Just one word of (non-legal) advice. Don't take things quite so personally.

I never mentioned, much less mocked, your status, or what part of your career journey you're on. To be honest, I couldn't care less, except to honestly wish you well in it. So any 'insult' you saw, was of your own imagining. I refer you back to our more private correspondence

It's not healthy to make EVERY interaction US V THEM, and there's a tactical line between adversarial and antagonistic.

And now, really, I'm going to have to leave this. I've talked round in circles enough as it is, and the Dauphine starts tomorrow.

All the best.