Skip to main content

Bloggers, Libel, The EU and Bridget Prentice

There have been a few thrashings around in cyberspace about the EU and blogging and potential changes to the law to make "suing bloggers easier".

Obligatory Disclaimer: My formal qualifications are in Nuclear Physics not law. If you follow my advice on law as opposed to how to blow the world up, don't sue me if I am wrong.

However, I have been on both ends of libel actions as well as assisted as a Mackenzie Friend in a Malicious Falsehood action (which was the funniest court case I ever attended).

Libel is an interesting area of law. It along with Privacy, enciting hatred and Contempt of Court are the key areas in which constraints of Freedom of Speech apply. There was an interesting event about libel tourism before the summer recess.

First point.

Britain has libel laws which make it quite easy to sue. For someone to win the defendant needs to be unable to prove what they said about the claimant is true. In the USA the claimant needs to prove what the defendant says is false.

You can sue for Libel in the small claims court, but the costs are unclaimable by either side and the maximum penalty is 5K.

The EU came out with some woffle about the status of bloggers being indeterminate which basically means any old individual can write a blog. And what is wrong with that. The ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy, but most people rely on it. It remains that it is a fallacy and that nonsense from the EU has to be binned.

Then we have Bridget Prentice's response on the Libel debate. I have not bothered to go back to source (which I really should), but what people have quoted as evidence for a major threat to blogging isn't.

Alex Hilton has had a lot of silly actions against him and spent quite a bit of money with lawyers. The problem is the money spent with lawyers that cannot eb recovered. The solution for Alex is to learn how to do this as a Litigant in Person.

In the mean time (and rightly) we have the odd situation that someone who moderates comments can be liable for libel, but someone who doesn't moderate comments cannot.

It is a bit like the argument about suing a fax machine manufacturer for the content of faxes. If you have no control then you cannot be sued.


There are issues about the magnitude of costs, but I really cannot see how Bridget Prentices comments cause any problems for bloggers.

Comments

MatGB said…
Thank you John, I agree completely. This was a debate the libel law reformers were pushing for and an overhaul is clearly needed. Padraig from Index on Censorship observed the debate and has also written a follow up answering the spurious concerns raised.

I do wish people would do some basic fact checking before flying off the handle—some day they're going to believe something that's defamatory and get sued...

(I love that you know how risky moderation is but still use it BTW)

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…