Totalitarianism: our political enemies committed no crime, so we must chsnge the law!

[Kuciwalker]

The British tabloid press (a low and fairly despicable bunch) manage quite happily under english libel law because most of their victims can't afford to lose and the newspapers can afford to pay up when they do.

Oh come on. Tabloids are not any worse here than they are on your side, and it's not like they're some huge problem either way.

Against that, the US situation where the defamed person has to prove malice, i.e. that it was a personal attack, is ridiculously stringent since that would be very difficult to prove in most cases but leaves the door wide open to libel anyone you like.

It's not libel if you're not violating the law.

No wonder your political campaigns throw sh1t like there is no tomorrow.

Laz would have a thing or two to say about the "dirtiness" of modern campaigns and politicians, I think

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I think any system in which the burden of proof is on the accused is fundamentally broken.

you think wrong then.

in a libel case, the following will happen: firstly; the accuser must prove that the accused has published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual, or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

so in other words the accuser must prove that a defamatory statement has been published about him. if this cannot be proved, then the action will fail without the accused having to do anything further.

if and when this has been established THEN the accused must prove that his statement falls within one of the categories which i listed in my original post. if his statement is protected by one of the available defences then the action will fail, if it is not then his statement is libellous and the action will succeed.

i hope that (finally) clears things up.

[Kuciwalker]

in a libel case, the following will happen: firstly; the accuser must prove that the accused has published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual, or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.

so in other words the accuser must prove that a defamatory statement has been published about him. if this cannot be proved, then the action will fail without the accused having to do anything further.

if and when this has been established THEN the accused must prove that his statement falls within one of the categories which i listed in my original post. if his statement is protected by one of the available defences then the action will fail, if it is not then his statement is libellous and the action will succeed.

i hope that (finally) clears things up.

No, I understood all of that. The point is, there's nothing wrong with defamatory remarks. The only problem is with FALSE defamatory remarks. And in fact the hardest bit of proof is that of the truth or falsehood of the statement, not its defamatory nature (which isn't a bad thing - defamatory true statements are good things!). In fact, for any defamation a plaintiff would want to sue over, it will be practically trivial to establish the defamatory nature. The burden of proof is then on the accused to demonstrate its truth, who may not have the means, financially or otherwise, to do so. It is a blank check for the rich/powerful to shut up the weak.

[C0ckney]

you might think it would be trivial, but a lot of issues can arise when looking at whether a statement is defamatory. a very simple example, if everyone thinks someone is an arsehole, then calling him an arsehole is not a defamatory statement.

i understand what you are saying, but think that you need to look at it from the other side. an important principle behind libel laws is that a man has a right to not have lies told about him. what these laws try to ensure, is that if someone publishes something which can damage another's reputation or business, then he should be able to back it up with something.

this doesn't mean that he must prove that it is gospel truth, it can be an opinion, so long as it is one that can be reasonably held. or of course it may fall under one of the other defences, which for example protect journalists investigating public figures.

it's true to say that libel actions have always been the playground of the rich, although this may change owing to the european court's decision in the 'mclibel' case, which said that the UK should provide legal aid for libel cases, under the ECHR.

[Kuciwalker]

i understand what you are saying, but think that you need to look at it from the other side. an important principle behind libel laws is that a man has a right to not have lies told about him. what these laws try to ensure, is that if someone publishes something which can damage another's reputation or business, then he should be able to back it up with something.

I agree, but only if the person attacked can demonstrate to some degree that the statements are false.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Against that, the US situation where the defamed person has to prove malice, i.e. that it was a personal attack, is ridiculously stringent since that would be very difficult to prove in most cases but leaves the door wide open to libel anyone you like.

Proving malice is ONLY if the person is a public figure. Public figures have a more stringent standard because what they do tends to be newsworthy (as the case that established this standard dealt with the NY Times publishing an article about the civil rights movement, specifically actions which were alleged to have been done by the Montgomery Alabama police force).

For non public figures, the accuser merely has to prove it was a false statement (which can be rebutted by the truth of the statement, opinion, good faith statement, etc). Some states even have defamation per se, where statements on certain issues are automatically considered defamation (such as allegations of having a "loathsome disease") unless rebuttable.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Ned
Cockney, thanks for the clarification. I was wondering how the government could bring a libel suit. But I also wonder how there could be any law that would allow the government to prosecute anyone for speech which is in the form of one's personal opinion.

you can't prosecute for holding personal opinion, you can however prosecute for speach wich is likely to incite violence or racial hatred.

I personally have some difficulties with the hatred laws but they are quite different than being proescuted for holding personal opinions.

The US has free spech it is not completely unqualified though as you I would guedd have everyone believe.