UK Libel Law (explained in post-it notes)
Loading...
2,163
Uploader Comments (bloggerheads)
see all
All Comments (9)
-
You should check out the Simon Singh case!
-
fasthosts in not helping customer shocker!
-
Summed up brilliantly as always, and very amusing too, even though it is another pointer to the utter destruction of civil liberties in Britain.
Loading...
I sympathise but can't see the problem with being made to prove the truthfullness of what you say about another person if the statement is derogatory. Its not gagging the truth, its trying to hold people who tarnish other people's reputations unfairly to account.
That being said the money involved means its pretty much the preserve of wealthy/famous people, an ordinary person often can't afford to bring a libel case, or defend one.
Its the practice, not the principle.
theporksicle 1 year ago
@theporksicle You miss the main point; lawyers acting for Usmanov specifically bypassed challenging the publisher of the claim by instead bullying their provider, and it is a peculiarity of local libel law that allows them to do this.
bloggerheads 1 year ago
@bloggerheads
But isn't the provider liable for what it allows to be communicated? In much the same way as a newspaper is responsible for the writings of its journalists? Were it not for the provider surely the supposedly libellous claims could never have been made?
theporksicle 1 year ago
@theporksicle They had what was published removed with NO intention of challenging the author in court. It is a peculiarity of local law that puts every UK-based site/host at a disadvantage and it restricts free speech.
bloggerheads 1 year ago
@bloggerheads
Surely if the provider thought the published work would stand up in court they would not have removed it?
theporksicle 1 year ago
@theporksicle Providers do not even enter into a discussion about it, they will just cave immediately. You need to look into this a little more.
bloggerheads 1 year ago