I was sued for libel under an unjust law
nature.com
nature.com
If you're a public figure or an organisation then we have to accept that some people are going to say some crazy things otherwise it would be too easy to use the courts to silence legitimate criticism.
As for Elsevier's package pricing strategy, it's interesting how similar this is to how cable companies price offerings.
In the case of cable companies (IMHO) we need structural separation between those that own the physical network and those that provide services on it. Around the world telecommunications policy is slowly heading in this direction in relation to the "last mile".
In the case of academic journals it seems academics are victims of themselves basically. Prestigious journals carry weight because academics give them weight. Promotions and continued employment sometimes revolve around getting published. At that point the academics are captive to those that provide those journals.
Previously distribution was a key problem. Now obviously it isn't. Some disciplines have taken a far more open approach to publication and peer review. This problem will probably be solved as more disciplines get organized and go their own way.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8379196...
I don't exactly sympathize with the panicky rhetoric of the pamphlet that was about, but nothing in it comes anywhere close to the kind of thing libel law legitimately protects against, and it looks like stuff that would be perfectly legal to say in more reasonable jurisdictions like Holland or the US.
But yes, even more outrageous than English libel law (there's no such thing as "UK libel law," since Scots law is different) is this Libel tourism business.
I wonder what it would take to get this reformed. Any British people on here who have a better view of the local political climate? I somehow suspect that a push from local constituent carries more weight in British politics in today's climate than ECHR judgments like the one in the McLibel case. Is there anyone strongly pushing for these strict laws, or is it just a case of inertia combined with nobody pushing very hard against it?
If we're being pedantic shouldn't it be England-and-Wales libel law?
What the hell, my karma was getting a bit high anyway.
I've not really researched if Wales exists as a country now only that someone told me the laws establishing the Senedd and giving it powers had changed the situation.
Scots libel law is different but shares some of the problems as well as having several of it's own.
My favourite is that historic (not something that has been used recently, though technically still true) if you hurt someone's feelings it doesn't matter that you were telling the truth...
Truly a pioneering piece of research, this.
http://www.nature.com/news/libel-win-reveals-need-for-reform...
and the accompanying Nature editorial
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/487139a...
give a lot more background on the details of this particular case, and on which defenses to libel claims are available under British law. Proposals for legal reform in Britain are also discussed at those links.
Being curious about his theories, I've located this...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohamed_El_Naschie
Which brought me to this...
"E-infinity theory"
"By introducing a space-time which is not only four-dimensional but also infinite-dimensional, and by using hyperbolic random fractals, I was able to precisely model this stormy ocean in which relativity and quantum mechanics can live side by side."
To me, the big story in all of this is Elsevier’s "package sales strategy". They are a much bigger foe, so accusing them of wrong doings directly would be a much bigger fight. Their dominance in the industry will hopefully soon evaporate.
This is a great example of how Elsevier uses its position in the industry to extract money from universities far out of proportion to the value they provide. I hope academia gets fed up with this soon and stops paying.
In America the burden is on the person being defamed to prove his case, including that the stated facts are unjust.
We have a lot of crazies here saying crazy things. It's wonderful.
So if I say you are a child molester - you have to prove that you aren't !
How exactly were you intending to do that?
It's not quite that simple. US libel law recognizes two classes of people: public figures and private citizens. Both classes of people have to demonstrate that the claim is false. Hence my high school journalism teacher's repeated phrase, "The best defense in a libel case is the truth."
For private citizens, a false claim is enough for libel. For public figures, it is not. Public figures have to prove malice. That is, the defendants knew that the statement was untrue, and said it for the purpose of causing harm. That's a very high bar.
IANAL but see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
Yes if an anon user on HN says another anon user on HN is a vi user instead of an emacs user - so what?
But if the NYT runs a front cover accusing me of some terrible crime, do I have to prove that I lost financialy because of it eg. I didn't get a new job, in order to get more than a retraction at the bottom of page 9?
I guess that doesn't seem to bad a compromise to me.
I was going to explain the rational used, but Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
You may need to show that the NYTimes knew it wasn't true, or had "reckless disregard for the truth," depending on your state and the specific case law.
Until your trial, "excuse-me committed [serious crime]" is undetermined and possibly libelous, but assuming the police did, in fact, name you as a suspect, "Police say excuse-me committed [serious crime]" true and therefore not libelous.
There is a reason newspapers write that way.
In the US, we grant much more latitude for commentary on public figures, and on comment on professional duties. If you were sued over writing an expose on the professional behavior of an editor of a journal, based on interviews with peers, it would be nearly impossible to get a court to even hear that case.
In 1817, William Hone, a satirist, defended himself against multiple charges under Britain's then-antiquated libel laws. He won, despite all odds. Read Ben Wilson's recent "The Laughter of Triumph: William Hone and the Fight for the Free Press" for more.
What boggles my mind, what truly causes me little conniptions, is that even after supposed reform of the various UK libel laws, they are still used today to silence one's opponents. IANAL, etc., but these laws do seem, uh, heavy handed and unfair, arming the slighted with fully automatic sledgehammer launchers to use against any foe, real or perceived.
Why UK libel laws must change:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/16/qa-with-simon...
Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-li... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/libel-la...
See also: http://www.libelreform.org
And since it never went to trial, there is nothing to stop them suing him again tomorrow, or picking on a less well defended or less public figure.
Placing the responsibility on the person you're writing about seems just plain unfair to me.
The only problem with the English libel laws is it takes so long to resolve a case. I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense, and would prefer this aspect to be fixed first - if at all possible.
No. Why would that be relevant?
Personally, I'm happy that I don't usually have to go double check every single fact I assert on forums like this one. That does mean that I'm wrong occasionally, but I'm happy to be corrected by others. I think less interesting conversations would happen if this wasn't true.
No, I'm talking about libel laws. From another comment lower down:
"There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken."
Just to clarify, from Wikipedia:
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image
Under the UK laws, fair comment is a valid defence. Again from Wikipedia:
This defence arises if the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#Fair_com...
So it's not like you can't comment on anything.
I think less interesting conversations would happen if this wasn't true.
The libel laws have been around a long time, and apparently from 2006, writings on the internet have been seen as being public enough for prosecutions to take place. Have you noticed a drop-off in internet conversations from British contributors since then?
The legal system is a highly profitable industry. It's why obvious frivolous lawsuits can go to trial.
Foreign "crank" defending himself - VS - one of the oldest and most prestigous science journals now owned by a huge publishing company.
Now imagine the next case is a multinational drug company suing an individual researcher or grad student because their published results don't fit with what the drug company would like to see.
"You eat babies in your spare time!"
"No, no I don't."
The 1st can produce a picture of the person eating a baby, how does the 2nd prove that he doesn't eat babies?
If the person who had the claim made against them had to definitively prove that beyond a doubt he doesn't eat babies - he'd have to have had someone recording him for every minute of his waking life, including those moments prior to the claim.
The only way to prove a negative is to run a (perhaps nearly) infinite number of tests and never get that result.
The negative claim that so-and-so has never eaten a baby is difficult to prove because that claim is actually a group of claims: so-and-so was not eating babies at time one, time two, time three, etc. Each and every claim in that sequence could be proven with a photograph that shows so-and-so doing something other than eating babies. Each negative in that sequence is provable. The problem is the length of the sequence: you need hundreds and hundreds of proofs. You would have the same trouble with any similar sequence of positive claims, such as the sequence entailed by the statement that there is a human-habitable planet in one out of ten solar systems.
That's equally difficult whether you're trying to prove that "All swans are white" or "No swans are black": the only ways to conclusively prove either involve examining large numbers of objects.
Go read Karl Popper on falsifiability.
I can prove there is a mouse that is blue and black on my desk, but I cannot prove that there has never been a red and black mouse on my desk, I can only assert such.
Doesn't the coexistence of the libel laws and the media industry kinda prove you wrong there?
I'm very intrigued to know how exactly the law works now.
I came across the following basic explanation a while ago, seems like a pretty decent write-up:
There are two versions of defamation, libel and slander. Libel is when the defamation is written down (including email, bulletin boards and websites), and slander is when the incident relates to words spoken.
In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!
For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke, that would be.
Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course, his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is very unlikely they would succeed.
Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC , so to say he wilfully doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged (note:Dyke has now left the BBC).
Continued here:
There are exceptions for reporting legal judgements, which is why its important to always refer to the convicted liar Jeffery Archer
Don't forget that homosexuality has only relatively recently become legal in England.
The Jason Donovan case is particularly interesting.
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sad-about-the-boy-1270092....)
But if you were running say a local paper and you went out of your way to consistently describe a local politician or school teacher/principal as "the homosexual Mr Smith" and your intentions were malicious they could have a reasonable chance of damages from you.
The winner gets there costs covered by the loser - realy rather simple and fair.