I think “libel tourism” (certainly “libel terrorism”) is something of a misnomer – English courts have jurisdiction if the libel in question ends up in this jurisdiction, which it did in Ehrenfeld’s case, as 23 books were delivered internationally to recipients here, and people accessing the article on the ABC News website from here.

Apparently Ehrenfeld chose not to defend herself because (a) it was prohibitively expensive and (b) she didn’t see why she should have to defend herself since her book was not published within this jurisdiction. Well, I have every sympathy with (a) but not (b), because the law must be taken as we find it, not as we would wish it to be. Fair enough if her lawyers said, “well they aren’t likely to attempt to enforce a default judgement anyway”… not much point in attending an English court. But otherwise it looks a bit like petulance – after all, there wasn’t an issue of proving jurisdiction.

It’s worth reading Bin Mahfouz & Ors v Ehrenfeld & Anor, the judgement (also King v Lewis & Ors), not least because it points out that in a new preface to a subsequent edition of her book, Ehrenfeld wrote,

On October 19, 2004, Khalid Bin Mahfouz commenced legal proceedings against me for libel in a British court. Despite the enormous cost involved, I have decided to take it upon myself to challenge Khalid Bin Mahfouz and provide the UK court with evidence that he, the Muwafaq Foundation, and the NCB have in fact supported Al Qaeda and HAMAS.

However, she did not attend court, let alone provide it with evidence. I’m not sure we have the whole story here (if indeed we ever do).

Phew!

Still, the principle of keeping lawyers out of our space is important, is it not? And ambulance chasers in particular.

It was in an email response by Obama to a supporter of the Pat Finucane Centre. There is an extract on their website.
http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/

Tom,

“I wonder when he will be getting his letter from Schillings?”

Hah!

Do you have a link?

Regardless of any ulterior motives Lieberman might be construed as having, his bill is fully consistent with long-standing US practice vis-a-vis the legal primacy of their Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Try reading any of the clarifications, reservations and derogations that the US submit, as a matter of course, when signing up to UN treaties and you’ll see that these all assert that the US constitution take precedence and that any treaty obligations to which the US agrees will be construed and interpreted in line with their Constitution.

I still have no sympathy for those that whistleblow and “investigate” without shoring up the facts before publishing them. Since when did common sense become optional?

Calling someone a cunt is, first and foremost, a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact, and is, therefore, not actionable because an opinion is not falsifiable. Calling someone a cunt, in addition, does not harm their reputation and is, therefore, prima facie not libellous, although if you impute an action on the part of the target in the course of making an insult that may be actionable.

‘Cunt’ is fine on its own – ‘lying cunt’ could get you sued unless, under the current law, you can demonstrate that the individual towards whom the insult is directed is actually a liar.

As the old saying goes, hard case make bad law and the example of someone making a false allegation of paedophilia is just such an example – remember the test in civil cases is that of a balance of probability, so someone making such a claim is still going to have to provide evidence to back up their position under cross-examination unless the plaintiff turns out to have an undisclosed prior for kiddie-fiddling.

The problem with the existing presumption in libel case is that most effects investigative journalism/whistle-blowing, where the proof necessary to demonstrate the truth of an allegation can all to easily vanish in the gaping maw of a heavy duty shredder. Cases can, therefore, be decided not on the truth but on the ability of a plaintiff to conceal evidence of the truth.

So far as libel cases are concerned, my preference would be that cases start without any presumption, one way or another, forcing both sides to present evidence to support their position if the case rests on the question of the truth or otherwise of an allegation. Juries should also have the option of a verdict akin to the Not Proven verdict in Scottish law, allowing them to hand down a verdict which says, in essence, that the cannot make a determination either way with sufficient confidence to enter a verdict for one of the parties.

I am all for the anarchy of web sites with principles, such as this one. Web sites without principle, I am not so sure about.

What I desperately do not want to see are folk like this:

“Offended by what you saw on an internet web site?

Call us

Mr Smith was called a ‘complete and utter cunt’.

“Thanks to our intervention Mr Smith now has a cheque for 7,000 pounds. Call us on 0898….”

If you’ve ever seen Jean Paul Satre’s ‘Hell’ which is afternoon TV, there are evil folk working to take us there. They are called lawyers.

I wonder when he will be getting his letter from Schillings?

It’s obviously hard to balance, and there are issues with how much legal proceedings cost, but I can’t find myself feeling sorry that people who make claims about other people have to actually prove that it is the case. As was shown as a perfect example in another thread, if someone accuses you of being a paedophile who sexually molests youngsters why is it that you should have to prove that what is said isn’t true? How can you prove what has been said isn’t true? The practicalities of Libel mean that it is much easier to tell someone “don’t say something about someone unless you can back it up” rather than “Hey everyone, take video diaries, witness statements and any other notes for all of your life just in case someone calls you something you aren’t”

Excuse me while I cry a river for those too inept to back up what they say, and also at the irony of those like Unity believing that this aspect of Libel law is negative when so many “Libel” proceedings against bloggers have been thwarted at the earliest stage simply by showing that the “defendant” doesn’t have any proof of what they’re saying.

As for American free speech, ask Mr Lieberman if he agrees with George W Bush and his free speech zones?……… that were set up to restrict any free speech in the ear shot of the President.

This is all about Big Corporates being able to smear Liberals, and not have to worry about Libel.

I am, of course, open-minded on this. I’m not really entirely satisfied by my own views, either.