Dara O'Briain campaigning to change libel laws

[Mrs Cuchillo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8404803.stm

Sounds like this may affect the naming and shaming policy on PH.

Discuss

[elster]

Mrs Cuchillo said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8404803.stm

Sounds like this may affect the naming and shaming policy on PH.

Discuss

So this means you they want to enable naming and shaming to encourage debate.

[AndrewW-G]

IMHO, it seems that what he wants is reform to ensure that taking action for and against defamation, would be easier and far cheaper than it is now. Saw O'Briain on the BBC this morning and this basic gist of his argument was that reform was needed to prevent libel cases being used to gag people due to the expense of fighting them, he was citing a figure of approx 100 times more expensive to pursue defamation cases in the UK.

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation, at the moment we have the odd situation where you either spend an eye watering amount with a solicitor or pass a brown envelope full of cash to a shaven headed thug to sort this sort of problem out.

Edited by AndrewW-G on Thursday 10th December 10:20

[TonyHetherington]

AndrewW-G said:

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation,

In response to the OP's original point about PH's "name and shame" rules - you can bet we'd be VERY strict if that were the case.

[him_over_there]

Dara O'Brien is quite correct, I saw the piece on the BBC this morning and it reminded how idiotic the presenters are.

Simon Singh is fighting a very expensive libel case right now with the BCA (British Chiropractic Association) after they went after him with libel for a piece he wrote about them.

Rather than defend their position with science and evidence, they took it to the court to silence him. That's not how science works and they know it! They know because they don't have a leg to stand in the scientific community and their claims are bunkum they have to go the legal route. Libel laws have no place in science, if you want to put a claim into the scientific arena you have to be willing to accept criticism of your ideas if they don't stand up to evidence and scientific scrutiny. Chiropractors, and a whole range of other psuedo-scientific drivel, doesn't and you shouldn't be able to be sued for saying it doesn't.


Defend yourself with evidence, not lawyers. This is especially important when people and bodies are making medical claims and claims on the efficacy of a product or method.

[AndrewW-G]

TonyHetherington said:

AndrewW-G said:

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation,

In response to the OP's original point about PH's "name and shame" rules - you can bet we'd be VERY strict if that were the case.

The problem as I see it, is that organisations with money use the current system to gag people (as per O'Briain's example) rather actually defend themselves against accusations & people on the receiving end of libellous comments who don’t have mountains of money can do little to defend themselves

Taking PH as an example, if the law were to change & included a law whereby the responsibility for libel was exclusively with the poster and not the hosts, would Haymarket still have to be as risk averse as they currently are? Yes I know it would end up with dozens of people suing each other (can think of at least half a dozen I'd take to court!) but where do you draw the line?

Edited by AndrewW-G on Thursday 10th December 10:37

[elster]

TonyHetherington said:

AndrewW-G said:

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation,

In response to the OP's original point about PH's "name and shame" rules - you can bet we'd be VERY strict if that were the case.

So basically no one could rant at for example:

Ford, Tesco, a doctor, an MP3 player and everything and everything in between?

[TonyHetherington]

AndrewW-G said:

Taking PH as an example, if the law were to change & included a law whereby the responsibility for libel was exclusively with the poster and not the hosts, would Haymarket still have to be as risk averse as they currently are?

If the law were to change, I'd presume so. But (as I'm sure you're aware, so forgive me for repeating), it is the hosts of the material that can be actioned against - and such occurences happen far more regularly than you may ever imagine.

But until the time that the hosts (PH) are not liable, we'll always, correctly, be protective of ourselves.

If the time does come when we're not liable, who knows - we may keep the same rules, because like you say - people left right and centre will be making adverse comments about other companies.

[TonyHetherington]

elster said:

TonyHetherington said:

AndrewW-G said:

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation,

In response to the OP's original point about PH's "name and shame" rules - you can bet we'd be VERY strict if that were the case.

So basically no one could rant at for example:

Ford, Tesco, a doctor, an MP3 player and everything and everything in between?

This isn't a dig at you, far from it, but let's think of it another way.

Let's imagine that to use PH you need to supply your full name and address (like the director of a company has to).

Let's also assume that no longer does the law say that it's the hosters that are liable but instead the poster themselves.

So, with that in mind, would you still like to post "Tesco are rubbish because XYZ", to which you will pretty much be guaranteed a letter from one of the biggest companies in the UK's solicitors?

It's all hypothetical, of course, but I trust you take my point?

As an aside; Tescos and Ford, no. Doctors and MP3 players, yes. The former are companies, the latter generic.

[G_T]

Would be brilliant to see this overturned. I love the idea that manufacturer's having to defend their claims.

Would be two massive fingers up the voodist health professionals.

[elster]

TonyHetherington said:

elster said:

TonyHetherington said:

AndrewW-G said:

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation,

In response to the OP's original point about PH's "name and shame" rules - you can bet we'd be VERY strict if that were the case.

So basically no one could rant at for example:

Ford, Tesco, a doctor, an MP3 player and everything and everything in between?

This isn't a dig at you, far from it, but let's think of it another way.

Let's imagine that to use PH you need to supply your full name and address (like the director of a company has to).

Let's also assume that no longer does the law say that it's the hosters that are liable but instead the poster themselves.

So, with that in mind, would you still like to post "Tesco are rubbish because XYZ", to which you will pretty much be guaranteed a letter from one of the biggest companies in the UK's solicitors?

It's all hypothetical, of course, but I trust you take my point?

As an aside; Tescos and Ford, no. Doctors and MP3 players, yes. The former are companies, the latter generic.

I am just struggling to follow the logic.

Say this was implemented, hypothetically. I would then have to show evidence to prove my case in court, and so the gagging order would then be lifted?

[TonyHetherington]

I don't understand it fully myself, and would never pretend to (just what I've been told from a PH point of view and how it affects us), but to quote the BBC story;

BBC story said:

Critics say it is wrong that in libel cases the heavier burden of proof lies with the defendant.

Claimant has to prove material is defamatory and refers to them, but not that it was false. Burden is on defendant to offer a defence

Claimants have to show material published is defamatory and that it is "reasonably understood" to refer to them. But they do not have to prove the material is false.

[AndrewW-G]

TonyHetherington said:

it is the hosts of the material that can be actioned against - and such occurences happen far more regularly than you may ever imagine.

I'm very aware of this, and know that many of the bigger hosting co's are very proactive in ensuring that any website that contains potentialy actionable material is censured rather rapidly (so should know better when flamming certain users on here )

In the case of Fasthosts, I'm aware that they will simply send out a fax advising the site owner to remove the content with a set period of time (used to be 12 hours) and then simply exclude the website / server from their firewall rules until its sorted.

[him_over_there]

elster said:

TonyHetherington said:

elster said:

TonyHetherington said:

AndrewW-G said:

I'd welcome a faster cheaper way of pursing(and defending) people for defamation,

In response to the OP's original point about PH's "name and shame" rules - you can bet we'd be VERY strict if that were the case.

So basically no one could rant at for example:

Ford, Tesco, a doctor, an MP3 player and everything and everything in between?

This isn't a dig at you, far from it, but let's think of it another way.

Let's imagine that to use PH you need to supply your full name and address (like the director of a company has to).

Let's also assume that no longer does the law say that it's the hosters that are liable but instead the poster themselves.

So, with that in mind, would you still like to post "Tesco are rubbish because XYZ", to which you will pretty much be guaranteed a letter from one of the biggest companies in the UK's solicitors?

It's all hypothetical, of course, but I trust you take my point?

As an aside; Tescos and Ford, no. Doctors and MP3 players, yes. The former are companies, the latter generic.

I am just struggling to follow the logic.

Say this was implemented, hypothetically. I would then have to show evidence to prove my case in court, and so the gagging order would then be lifted?

No, as Tony has shown below with the BBC quote, the fact that you are right and have evidence on your side to show you are correct, doesn't seem to matter.

[JagLover]

I agree with him.

Current Libel laws stifle free speech and are a bonzana for lawyers.

When people from the rest of the world are coming here to pursue their libel cases, when any 'libel' took place overseas, then you know something is wrong with the system.

[Jasandjules]

Freedom of Speech should be held in far higher esteem than it is now.

[Martial Arts Man]

A publisher I used to know had a simple rule about what he would or wouldn't publish.

If the subject is richer than you, be careful.

If the subject is poorer than you, print whatever you like.


He once happily admitted to me that his big advertisers would often say "We'll only advertise if you publically rubbish xyz person or abc new start-up". Basically, he would do their dirty work for them to targets that both he and the "big boy" knew did not have the means to fight back.


A very murky world indeed.


It is a ridiculous situation to be honest.