I can’t recall having ever read a retraction quite this brutal:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/26/melania-trump-apology/
UK libel laws are among the strongest in the world, and until a few years ago “libel tourism” was very common–that is, find the tiniest shred of a relationship with the UK, and file suit in their courts, because the filer is very likely to win. While the tourism aspect aspect has been improved, the situation is not any better when there is a genuine UK connection, as with a publication based there. The burden of proof rests with the journalist, not the one bringing the claim (as in the US).
It’s such a poor state of affairs that the US has specific laws that prevent US courts from enforcing UK libel rulings. Unfortunately for them, the laws do not work in reverse: UK courts are obviously happy to enforce their rulings against losing UK defendants.
What all this means is that there’s no reason to believe that Melania’s lawyers had a particularly strong case or even that The Telegraph’s claims were false. It’s just that defendants face a strong burden. The lawsuit wouldn’t have stood a chance in the US, particularly since Melania is a public figure.
And I think it’s better the UK way. The Telegraph made a series of claims about Mrs Trump and could not prove that that they were true. So they rightly got sued.
Americans spew all sorts of nasty crap about political figures with seeming impunity and it’s not good for the general political discourse.
Do note though that even in the UK truth is an absolute defence.
Is opinion actionable in the UK? One thing that struck me about the apology is that, at the very least, whether Melania’s father was “fearsome” seems to me to be an opinion, rather than statement of fact. Probably the same with whether her career was “successful” or “struggling”.
You don’t think the Telegraph’s own detailed admission of false claims is a “reason to believe”?
For a few example:
“Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article.”
“The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump. They did not.”
Was the Telegraph publishing false claims then or are they publishing false claims now? I don’t see a scenario where they’re not #FakeNews at least once here.
I acknowledge that the average conservative wouldn’t be able to survive a week if he had to live under British libel laws. With Trump it would be a day. And clearing these people out of politics would be a plus.
But overall, I prefer free speech.
Nor would the average American Democrat. Doper Democrats would be hard pushed to last a day.
Likewise, but with freedom comes responsibility. Just as people are free to make unsubstantiated claims and lie about other people, so they should be held responsible for those claims and lies. And the UK system upholds that; from what I’ve read, the US system does not.
No. It’s obvious that they were ordered to print an apology with particular claims in it and that’s what they did. This isn’t the Telegraph re-researching the facts of their article; they’re just parroting whatever Melania’s lawyers gave the courts.
Again, the burden is on the defendant. Melania doesn’t have to prove that they met in 1998. But The Telegraph would have to demonstrate proof with a high degree of certainty that the year was really 1996. Whatever their evidence was, it wasn’t enough.
In the US, particularly with a celebrity, it’s enough to show that you had reasonable cause to believe a statement. Absolute proof is hard to come by, obviously. And then there’s Falchion’s point that a few of the claims were more matters of opinion than fact.
US laws have a number of “outs”: truth of the statement, reasonable cause, no actual malice, a matter of opinion, or so ridiculous that the public wouldn’t believe it. On this latter point, Hustler claimed that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mom in an outhouse. That is a rather damaging claim and would seem to be a matter of fact and not opinion, but the courts ruled in favor of Hustler because the claim was too silly to believe.
I don’t actually have any idea (nor do I care) whether the Telegraph’s original claims, the apology claims, or something else are true. Just that there’s no particular reason to believe the apology due to the way the UK laws work.
I’m a bit surprised at the source; the Telegraph is a solidly conservative (Tory) Paper (or at least it has been when I last saw it). You would think it would not be interested in such a story (the Daily Mirror or The Sun would be my pick for such a story) or would have at least researched it better.
Fake News? 
UK “Conservative” is wildly progressive by US standards.
I agree with Quartz; some vigorous tightening of the American media and laws Brit-style could rein in a serious amount of fake news and whatnot.
They don’t appear to have prevented the Telegraph from publishing various false claims.
But it has resulted in them getting dinged for it.
And I always thought the UK laws allowed pretty much to go on- obviously wrong. I think a balance needs to be found- ours (Australia) are so stringent that people can hardly say “Smith is a two faced lying bastard” even if Smith is a two faced lying bastard.
I don’t see how “matter of opinion” is an “out.” If something is an opinion, then by definition it cannot be true or false so therefore not subject to libel laws.
The UK law is horrific. Even the Commons’ Speaker’s Wife Bercow was held liable for this:
Holy shit! If I was in the UK, I would not say anything about anything. In the above example, how is Bercow’s wife saying anything defamatory?
IIRC, it would be as if when the Kavanaugh allegations came out, if I said, “Why is Christine Ford trending? *innocent eyes” I could be held liable to Kavanaugh?? Am I misunderstanding this?
That depends upon how important and how rich you are.
And reputable papers I the US print corrections all the time. They have an interest in their reputation and accurate reporting. Sometimes folks slip through the cracks, but I have very many journalists in my circle of friends and have worked as one from the photographicl side, and they are all serious about their ethics and reporting factually. I know some are scumbags and lie, but this is not the norm in my experience. This is what I find most annoying about the “Fake News” garbage. The folks who are really spreading Fake News don’t correct it, even when called on it.
Hmmm, interesting. So I have (shamefacedly) been following far too much royal gossip these days, all out of UK tabloids. How do they get away with reporting such wild speculations? Is it like in the US, where they find someone who happens to, say, dust the candelabras in Buckingham Palace once a week and then get him to say the Queen was replaced by a lifelike robot ten years ago, and then they can technically truthfully report, “Palace insider reports that Queen has been robot for ten years!” and all is well?
Or are the laws actually stricter, but The Firm do not deign to sue, so tabloids know they can get away with crossing the line fairly blatantly?
The Royals will (hardly ever) sue, at any rate for libel, rather than privacy. They, or their advisors, take the view that such stuff is better ignored.