I've just read this rather thought provoking post by a seppo friend of mine who I have much respect for titled Saudi terror, British censorship. The post questions whether our libel laws, and the fact that the onus is on the defendent to prove what they said is true is detrimental to the publication of important books and thereby tantamount to censorship?
The post raises specifcally the case of Khalid bin Mahfouz and his attempts to sue for libel in the British courts the authors of books which allege a connection between the Saudi government and terrorism. It appears as well that the book in question has not even been published in the UK, although you can buy it through Amazon obviously.
The question is, does this represent censorship on the part of the British legal system? Is libel weighted to heavily in some cases in favour of the plaintiff? Interestingly, this morning's Independent also carries a piece about how US celebrities are using the UK courts more and more to sue for libel because they cannot in the US.
Is there a case for the overhaul of our libel laws on the basis of free speech and also on the basis that in some cases they serve to censor information that ought to be in the public domain as fair comment?
5 comments:
If I were you, I'd delete any named reference to the gentleman in question, otherwise the search engines will pull you down too.
I thought about that and have specifcally pointed out that he is suing for something that "allege" connections.
Yes, British defamation laws are somewhat more stacked with the complainant rather than the author. There is no "freedom of speech", except at Speaker's Corner, in court and on the floor of Parliament.
Under US law, you need to prove malice, which is hard, especially as the press specifically and authors generally are normally accepted as "doing their job". Under UK law, you need to show:
"the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally."
Liberty have a comprehensive guide online - and they do state that:
"It is a complete defence to an action for defamation to prove that the defamatory statement is substantially true."
However:
"the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegations made are true. The defendant must prove it on the balance of probabilities, that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true."
At least Dizzy seems safe:
"If a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment."
S-E
I think that the problem with the first case Rojas mentioned was the standing issue. The publishers didn't plan to be publishing in the UK and so released a book that was edited accordingly; UK publishers know what the libel laws are in the UK and edit for them (generally, although as I said at TCP, a friend of mine saw his first UK print run pulped).
Personally, I think that the UK libel laws are fine. If I say something as fact which will harm you, I should be able to back it up in court.
The fact that the loser pays the winner's costs in UK courts (generally and with provisos) means that people are more careful about lawsuits. As they should be.
Actually, you can't get the book at Amazon, either: http://www.amazon.com/Alms-Jihad-Charity-Terrorism-Islamic/dp/0521857309/ref=sr_1_1/105-1227117-0335608?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186020040&sr=8-1
Post a Comment