Libel law discussion thread

[ChewbaccaD]

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 Better still, if you can, get a Pre 2010 edition for historical reference.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.

Actually, I understood the forest as well as the trees on this one. My single point all along is that any judgment by a UK court in relation to a statement made or typed in the US against Wiggins or Sky would never be enforced. There are many reasons for this, and I was pointing them out. All of those reasons are still intact. I referenced jurisdiction (personal or subject matter) because they are threshold questions.

My point in using Sullivan was not to suggest they were public officials which is why I pointed to the fact that there were other cases that established that Sky and Wiggins are public figures. My point was to reference the BOP, and the party responsible for that BOP. If I intimated otherwise, it was not intentional.

Your tone did seem mocking, but that could be a function of the internet being a poor method of communication because non-verbal communication doesn't come across. Fair enough points about "us v. them." That is certainly a personal foible.

And thanks for the Richmond and Reynolds suggestion.

Sleep well.