Britain's scariest libel firm
economist.com
economist.com
----
Then your trips to Europe become very difficult since you have to avoid a layover in Heathrow.
On top of that, if the firm is aggressive enough, they can pursue you or your assets in other countries w/out a SPEECH act. Then, even if eventually thrown out, you have to deal with that.
I had to make the difficult decision either to ignore them and potentially risk arrest if I found myself in the UK and risk my assets being seized if they ever ended up under control of a UK exposed entity (perhaps due to an instution I use being acquired by a UK entity), or to fight back and expose myself to legal costs which could be ruinous even in the (likely) case that I win, creating a serious risk that I could lose by virtue of running out of funds. (A situation the claimant has even bragged publicly that he intended to create).
Fortunately there was charitable support able to cover the legal costs, which made the decision somewhat easier but nothing will ever compensate me for the astronomical amount of my time the litigation has taken up and the stress its subjected me to.
The SPEECH act is a big improvement over the prior situation, but unfortunately the ability to abuse the UK for SLAPP isn't limited to libel lawsuits. I think we need a generalization of the SPEECH act that bars the enforcement (and turns obtaining a judgement into a domestic tort) of foreign judgements in jurisdictions that don't have comprehensive anti-SLAPP protections.
But even with that there remain fundamental challenges. As a victim of malicious litigation I'd like it if the courts better regarded bringing false litigation as a tort and had more facilities to require the claimant to post security for not just cost but for substantial damages in case their claim is found to be false. But policy like that would dramatically reduce access to justice especially for parties with limited means. You're not going to sue big-bad who genuinely harmed you if losing means paying huge damages, especially if you'd have to post security for it.
There is probably no complete solution to using the courts abusively.
We're fortunate to live in mature civilizations that are stable and safe enough to give us an illusion that the universe is somehow fundamentally fair. But it isn't: nature is red in tooth and claw though we try to hide it. Sometimes a bad person can harm you and yours gravely and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it except try to pick up the pieces and move on. This is obviously true when you consider attack with a gun or a knife (nothing can undo a death or serious injury), but anything can be a weapon if you're creative enough-- including a court.
But that doesn't mean we can't try to do better.
Not to mention that you are always anxious you don't have an inflight incident. Bad weather, medical emergency (there are 300 people aboard), mechanical issues, etc
In many respects, England (and Wales, but not Scotland) is still run for the benefit of the feudal aristocracy, parasites descended from thugs. No property taxes (only stamp duty on transfers the feudal never incur), the archaic practice of leasehold even Tories admit is feudal, or the numerous tax breaks accorded the monarchy.
In US law, yes. But I thought that was not so under English law. "Mansfield said it, it's true as the Bible/The greater the truth, the greater the libel." was an old summary.
> Few would argue that libel law shouldn’t exist.
Well, maybe more people should argue that, after all, mostly the other few benefit from all this huge power imbalance of being able to chop someone's hand off (or do the modern financial ruin alternative)
Everybody can write an angry letter to 'anyone, anywhere'.
Can Carter-Ruck actually force 'anyone, anywhere' to cease & desist / defend themselves at court?
What stops a resident of say Hong Kong or Russia or Paraguay from totally ignoring said angry letter?
There is nothing that stops, say a Russian from ignoring an English Law firm but they might find a local "issue" turns up from a local law firm, prompted from over here. It will be meticulously researched and couched in local legal terms.
You might like to note that recently a judge in the Russian Federation has declared that a group called "international LGBT public movement" is now outlawed. That group does not really exist per se but it is now a label that can be applied to someone. There are penalties in law from being associated with that group/moniker. I imagine that any responsible person can assert that someone is a member of that (fictional) group and expect justice to be done.
Do I really have to spell out how this goes down? Russia at least declares their "issues". Some other jurisdictions don't bother with those ... niceties.
2. They can pursue you or your assets in other countries. Now, a judge in Italy is unlikely to care what UK courts have to say about an American (since Italy is loath to offend the US) but what if you're merely a Chad citizen (unfortunately, a nobody) in Poland (a massive Anglo ally)?
> It seemed legitimate to her (an impression aided by the fact that its co-founder, Ruja Ignatova, had addressed a conference organised by The Economist)
Admitting their own role in this saga was nice.
Losers. This guy bills at €1000 / hour.
Plenty of other countries gesture at the idea of free expression, even in their constitutions, but in practice it doesn't exist. It becomes illegal to "defame" (or even just "insult") someone by merely expressing an opinion, not making a factually defamatory claim. It's an awful way to run a democratic society.
I mean, I could name a bunch of American political podcasts which would have been sued out of existence by the powerful people they joke about in any other country.
Also: "British libel law retains something of its aristocratic origins: the person claiming to have been defamed is the one presumed to be telling the truth, unlike in the legal traditions of continental Europe and America." I wonder how true this is about the UK, sounds messed up.
Chomsky is quite open that the US is the only country in the world where he can be as critical of the sovereign as he is.
Frankly it's a big reason I finally decided to become American.
Or are they even allowed to have a serious conversation about it given those very libel laws?
ie. It's not "a serious conversation" until you can bring receipts.
On the flip side many British publications are skilled at skirting libel and can easily imply, impute, report that an allegation was raised, etc without directly coming out and making a statement that they (so far) cannot prove in Court.
Which circles back to many layered beast with many pros and cons and a history of the application of libel swinging too far one way or another at various times.