My right to a good name trumps their right to make unprovable accusations.
I think it might not be the case in the US either. Scary if true.
I disagree. You don’t have a right to a good name.
Irish Constitution says I do 
Tbh, your reputation is everything in this life, it determines the opportunities and interactions that you are exposed to. The tort of defamation protects this and is even more important in an era when a quick google on someone will bring up their life story.
There’s no way I can comprehend a society that thinks one’s reputation is as much as or more important than life or liberty. Unlike either of those, you can change your name and move if you lose it. I could maybe see it as worth more than property if you don’t have very much of it.
But, more importantly, how the hell is it more important than the truth? That’s precisely what the British laws say. Even if you have the data, the fact that you are going to have to pay for trial is going to be enough leverage for a rich person to stop you from posting it.
I’m thinking right now what would happen if this message board were in Britain. Somebody could say something mean about you in the Pit, and could get sued for defaming that person.
And, really, I can’t wait until the day that somebody says something on their blog, and it makes it high into the Google search, and somebody tries to sue Google UK over it. It would be fun to see Google stop indexing anything in that country to avoid accidentally saying something bad, and see how long it takes the country to realize that the ability to disseminate information is worth way more than any individual’s precious reputation.
It seems like none of the participants in this thread are recognizing that there is a balance to be struck.
On the one hand, there is a public value to allowing the free dissemination of truthful information that affects the public welfare.
On the other hand, there is a value to protecting the reputation of an individual against the spreading of defamatory claims that, even if true, are none of the public’s business.
On the one hand, there is a value to freedom of speech.
On the other hand, someone else’s free speech if false, or even if just unfair or intrusive into one’s private life that is no business of the public, can have serious consequences on an individual that should be compensable, at the very least.
Things aren’t so simple and neither the U.S. or U.K. legal system has taken an absolutist stance. Each system is open to criticism, but the juvenile stances taken by many of the posts here haven’t even come close to the heart of reasonable discussion.
(And, as has been noted, there is in fact a movement in the United Kingdom to discourage libel tourism.)
(My bolding)
Have I missed an episode? From your (hysterical and biased) link: “GE Healthcare is suing him for libel in the UK High Court. The company claims his presentation in Oxford — entitled “Management Aspects of NSF” — was highly defamatory.”
You’re saying that he shouldn’t be sued for something that happened in Denmark, but I’ve just checked in my atlas, and Oxford isn’t in Denmark. It’s in England.
As an ordinary British subject, I have nothing to do with the libel laws. Oddly enough, political parties don’t run on a platform of what they’re going to do with the libel laws, and even if they did, I’m more mature than to vote on a single issue. So while we’re at it, fuck you too.
Actually the Lib Dems are focusing on libel reform as part of their manifesto.
The bolded part is one of the more depressing things I have ever read on these boards.
The implications of strong libel laws are very worrying, but the British public is way too apathetic to give a shit. We deserve to be criticised. Anyone remember Trafigura? Our papers were prevented from covering remarks made in Parliament. Yeah, that’s got nothing to do with the ordinary British citizen. And what about the Simon Singh case? We can’t question the existence of reasonable proof for tax-payer funded alternative therapies? Wake up and smell the coffee, our libel laws are a huge affront to democracy and freedom of information.
Give me a break. Do you really feel that as a voter I can influence how every area of law is formulated? Newsflash: all the parties have lots of opinions. Local MPs might be the best for the constituency but not agree with the party line. Some positions one party takes, which I do agree with, might cumulatively outweigh some of their other positions which I don’t agree with. The Lib Dems are running on a fairly broad manifesto. As I said, I don’t vote on single issues. I don’t get to go and sit in a room and give input into how I think the libel laws should be formulated; I don’t have *enough *input into them to deserve someone telling me I’m wrong because the law is wrong. It seems to me that everyone at the moment is jumping on the bandwagon of changing the libel laws, and that’s a pretty good thing as long as they do it right, but I’m afraid I’m not just going to look at what each party is doing about *that *to decide how to cast my vote.
Are you by any chance a member of a political party? Are you an activist? Do you do anything to make your voice heard, or do you just tell other people that on a message board full of stories of death and disaster, them feeling distanced from day-to-day lawmaking is one of the most depressing things you’ve ever read? Maybe I’ll see you around - I’ll be delivering leaflets and doorstepping before the election. If not there, then maybe I’ll see you at one of the local MPs’ surgeries or public meetings. No? Not there either? OK… um… you could come to one of my politics/why it’s important to be informed and use your vote classes, which I offer for local teenagers before/as they approach their majority. Depressing and apathetic my arse.
And you don’t seem to have addressed the problem I identified with the OP - that he’s saying it’s wrong for someone who said something in Denmark to be sued in England, when actually that person is being sued in England for something he said in England.
WTF? You’re being a dick. I have no idea why you’ve concluded that I’m a big hypocrite. I’m not. I’ve done all the mundane bits of local politics. But good for you for making sure everyone knows that you do, too. I guess you’re just defensive about being accused of apathy. No need, just next time engage brain before you post about how this very real issue doesn’t matter to ordinary British citizens.
(I took odds with the last paragraph of the post I quoted.)
I **never **said it didn’t matter. And demonstrating that something isn’t true is not the same as being defensive. You said “*we *deserve to be criticised”. Well, I certainly do on some things, but political apathy isn’t one of them, so why would you assume it is? Speak for yourself. And while you’re at it, why don’t you answer my actual question?
Ireland is a small country, and people have long memories.
You make it sound easy to just up and leave your friends and family, but it’s not easy moving to another country.
A huge amount of our business is conducted on a personal basis, and reputation for honesty (with regards to those you deal with) is hugely important if you want to get ahead.
I can’t speak for the British legal system, but just because something is factually true doesn’t stop it ruining someone’s reputation.
An extreme example:
Imagine A is a father, who lives in a small town. Sadly his wife is dead, having died in childbirth. He is left with his young son A Jnr, affectionately known as a. One day a is sick, and scared of the dark, so A lets him sleep in the double bed that he once shared with his wife. This happens a few times, with a feeling scared, and crawling into the bed.
Now, C is a’s teacher, and he hates A. He finds this out from a. He then prints up several leaflets and distributes them in the area, informing them that “A regularly sleeps with a”.
A group of local lads go round and threaten A, while the local women begin to gossip.
A soon finds out what happened, and, enlisting the aid of the local priest, tells everyone that it’s a lie, and that he has a long-running feud with C.
The damage is done, however, and A has to live with rumours and glances for the rest of his life. He now feels uncomfortable in his local, and having grieved for a respectable period, is now finding it hard to get any of the women to consider him.
It looks as if he will have to move, and take a out of school, and out of the home he has known all his life.
Should A not be able to sue C for defamation, even though C said nothing that wasn’t true? A was indeed sleeping with a, but C clearly misrepresented the situation maliciously, in order to cause pain to A. Since ‘there is no smoke without a fire’, A has suffered considerably as the accusation is enough to taint him.
Obviously the above is an extreme example, but it is possible to take something true about someone and use it maliciously against them.
I have NSF, its one of the most painful things evre
Does it affect zombies?
kkhorana, welcome to the dope. I am sorry to hear about your painful condition. The reference to zombies in the previous post indicates that you have raised this thread from the dead where it had been sleeping since March 2010. The above discussion seems to have been primarily concerned with British libel laws, rather than anything about the the pros or cons of treating NSF with Omniscan.
So you may be better off starting your own thread about it, rather than resurrecting this one.
Can I start? I call Simon Pegg!