George Galloway - Not a traitor after all.

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Futile Gesture *
**
But in UK law, and I suspect just about any other country’s, this is still a libel. Otherwise you could circumvent any all libel law by saying “Someone else told me that …” and when challenged defend yourself by claiming that this is true, you were told by someone else.

**

I don’t think this is true. If a political canidate spouts off that his opponent rapes dogs, hey, that’s news. The headline would be canidate claims his opponent rapes dogs!!!
[sub]we see similar mudslinging in every campaign here in the states, although without dog references[/sub]

This simplistic site says this:

The court ruled that public officials could not recover damages from defamatory material unless they established that it was published with actual malice.

Actual malice is defined as publication of defamatory material “with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The evidence they found may have been false. But I do not see that they knew it was false, nor that they had a reckless disregard.

[GIGObuster]

The Daily Telegraph is beginning to look more like The Daily Prophet!!

[sub]Read the latest Harry Potter book to get the reference! Of course, finding that book in stores now (July 25th) is like finding WMD in Iraq![/sub]

[tagos]

*Originally posted by Mojo *
**The documents that the CSM obtained and those that the Telegraph obtained were quite different. A Telegraph reported discovered the first set of Galloway/Iraq docs in a bombed out building and, from what all experts who have examined these docs have said these are consistent with Iraqi gov’t docs. OTOH the docs that the CSM obtained were bought by a CSM reporter after it was realized that there was a market for 'em. The two sets of documents are very different in nature and in the circumstances that they were obtained- I don’t think it’s fair to claim that because someone faked the second set that the first set must necessarily be fake as well.

Uh-huh, the “Bollinger Bolshevik” doesn’t have the resources to sue for libel… **

The Telegraph claiming how they got the documents and the actual process may well be two entirely different things. On Newsnight at the time it was reported the repoorter was led to the documents by a passing Iraqi. Plenty of room for mischief there.

And please substantiate your bollinger Bolshevik crack. All the UK gutter press could dig up was a spanish villa bought years ago and rebuilt by himself over a number of years that is now worth a couple of hundred thousand pounds on paper. All they noted of course, was the alleged value.

[Futile_Gesture]

*Originally posted by spooje *
**Actual malice is defined as publication of defamatory material “with knowledge that it was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The evidence they found may have been false. But I do not see that they knew it was false, nor that they had a reckless disregard. **

Well UK and US law obviously differs. In the the UK the publisher has an obligation to ensure what is published is true, regardless of intent.

Not that this means that everything published in UK papers is true. They often play a very careful game judging just how far they can bend the truth, usually considering how much money the libeled person has. Suing for libel can be risky and expensive business unless you’re loaded to begin with.

I wonder if Galloway can sue the Christian Science Monitor in the UK.

[Neurotik]

If the CSM is being published in the UK, why wouldn’t he be able to sue them?

[Desmostylus]

Richard Perle was going to sue Seymour Hersh in the UK, for something published in the New Yorker.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2080384/

Richard Perle Libel Watch, Week 2
A suggested itinerary for libel tourist Richard Perle.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:02 PM PT

One week ago, Richard Perle informed his pals at the New York Sun of his intention to sue Seymour Hersh, alleging that the investigative journalist libeled him in a New Yorker feature. Perle—no fan of international law, if his views on the United Nations are any indication—said he was “talking to Queen’s Counsel right now” about filing his case in a British court instead of a red, white, and blue one because it’s easier for a plaintiff to win there than here.