# The Telegraph must have got their asses kicked by Melania's lawyers **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 26, 2019, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435 "2019-01-26T07:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2019, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/41 "2019-01-28T14:41:30Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > I have been resisting this, I have enough work to do, besides give an upaid lecture on Defamation Law. > But, alas I failed to resist. > > Lets begin. > > Under English law (NOT UK) for a statement to have been defamatory; > > 1. It must have been published; meaning a number of people heard it > 2. Was of a nature which woiuld make right thinking people think less of a person > 3. Since 2013, it must have caused “serious harm”; > > Only once this has been established does it become a case to answer > There are several defences: > > 1. Truth. The statement is literally true. Not that you thought it was true, but it infact was > 2. Honest Opinion. If the statement was one of opinion, not fact, then as long as the opinion is honestly held, it cannot be defamatory. > 3. Fair Comment on a matter of public interest. As long its a statement about a matter of public interest, the former meaning here made without overt malice; then again no defamatory. This is the head the Melania case would come under IMO > 4. Privlege. Its a statement which is totally or partially priveleged. Also related specifically to the 'repeating a liable thing, the Defamation Act 2013 has changed that considerably from the common law. Now you must have some form of editorial control to be defamatory. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/42 "2019-01-29T18:02:43Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > 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. AFAIK, UK libel law is excessive and needs some amendment. Actually, the same can be said of a number of other UK laws, or in some cases, their absence. The UK works on laws rather than rights. The right to free speech in the UK is heavily circumscribed by the libel laws, indeed, I am not sure if there is an actual right. Outside of Hyde park Corner, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2019, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/43 "2019-01-29T18:04:42Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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. \ The first rule of journalism: GET THE FACTS RIGHT. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/44 "2019-01-30T01:22:59Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Not just libel laws, apparently. My daughter-in-law (who is from Manchester) used to routinely sue different entities for things that would likely be immediately dismissed in a US court. When I lived in Belgium, I was told that if you hired someone to do work at your house, you were responsible for his welfare to and from the job. In other words, if he was injured or killed on the way to your home, you were liable for any expenses incurred. :eek: :eek: That’s because you think that damages are to punish the guilty. But they think that damages are to protect the innocent. Obviously, I simplify. But you may be interested to learn that the English (and Australians) often think that Americans are at their most immoral precisely when Americans think that they are taking a strong and just moral position. ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/45 "2019-01-30T14:12:58Z")
> [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > AFAIK, UK libel law is excessive and needs some amendment. Actually, the same can be said of a number of other UK laws, or in some cases, their absence. The UK works on laws rather than rights. The right to free speech in the UK is heavily circumscribed by the libel laws, indeed, I am not sure if there is an actual right. Outside of Hyde park Corner, of course. UK libel laws - which used to be largely based on the common law - have been amended in the Defamation Act 2013. It prevents venue shopping, for a start, and softens a lot of the harsher common law. It is not the only law which would circumscribe say, an American idea of free speech, but it is one. Equally, even speech in Hyde Park Corner is not entirely free. The UK does have a Bill of Rights. It allows for absolute Parliamentary freedom of speech. There is no general right to free speech in the UK although that must be looked at via the lens of the Human Rights Act and Article 10 of the EU Convention on Human Rights (for now). Courts must interpret the laws in accordance with these acts and articles. In one respect you’re correct - unlike Australia and the US, Parliament is supreme in the UK (with the merest whisper of an exception for the Human Rights Act). All three are nations of laws, not of rights (although in all instances rights - such as natural justice, can influence the interpretation of laws.) The difference is that in the UK, the courts cannot act to change a law or strike it out - only Parliament can do that. There is judicial oversight of the enforcement of the law, but not the laws themselves. (Australian qualified solicitor, awaiting final paperwork for UK qualification, American by birth - it’s interesting to stick all my influences in one post.) ---
**Author:** ![Gleena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@Gleena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gleena)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/46 "2019-01-30T14:15:43Z")
> [@Melbourne](#): > > :eek: That’s because you think that damages are to punish the guilty. But they think that damages are to protect the innocent. > > Obviously, I simplify. But you may be interested to learn that the English (and Australians) often think that Americans are at their most immoral precisely when Americans think that they are taking a strong and just moral position. Damages are to put the person back into the position they were in before the act was committed, so far as money can do it. They aren’t to punish OR protect. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/47 "2019-01-30T15:16:05Z")
How could you possibly harm Melania Trump’s reputation? What were the damages? 50p? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435/48 "2019-01-30T16:01:06Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Nor would the average American Democrat. Doper Democrats would be hard pushed to last a day. You’re adorable. Don’t ever change. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > “Wildly progressive” does not apply to the Telegraph, at least what I’ve seen of its reporting. > > MediaBias/FactCheck ranks The Telegraph as having slight to moderate conservative leanings\*, in the same class as papers like the Chicago Tribune and Wall St. Journal. > > \*but gives it a good score for factual reporting. > [@Quartz](#): > > The Telegraph is right-of-centre in UK terms, but it caters to everyone therein from the Dripping Wets to the Hard Right. The “Torygraph” always catered to the large-and-small-C conservative crowd but once upon a time it was reasonably reliable from a factual standpoint. In recent years the paper has slid to a level of frothing partisan mediocrity that borders on tabloidhood for any subject with a political bent; whether this is the will of the Barclay brothers (and God forbid I should imply anything positive about Conrad Black here) or because they’ve been replacing experienced journalists with fresh young faces just copying stuff off the internet is a question left for the reader (or perhaps the Telegraph’s readers). Certainly the ascension of Jeremy Corbyn seems to have thrown them into a full-on frenzy of spin and misrepresentation. I’m surprised they went after Melania - as noted, they usually save their yellowest journalism for the left - but perhaps this is one of those “stories copied off the internet” incidents. > [@Brayne\_Ded](#): > > \ The first rule of journalism: GET THE FACTS RIGHT. Not anymore. It’s now “GET THE MESSAGE RIGHT”. The Daily Mail has on several occasions printed big front-page stories that have been entirely made up, but the targets of these have usually been [immigrants](https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/mar/17/dailymail-pcc), [Muslims](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-447750/Hospital-banned-hot-cross-buns-avoid-offending-non-Christians.html)and [anyone suggesting that Brexit might not turn out to be all sunshine and roses](https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-high-court-article-50-judges-mail-express-front-page-2016-11?r=UK). They occasionally get forced to print a retraction (often buried deep within the paper) and even sometimes get sued, but by and large they get away with it. The other tabloids aren’t exactly beacons of journalistic excellence either. Broadcast media, on the other hand, is held to a much higher standard. Despite being a Murdoch media outlet Sky News manages to put in a lot of decent news reportage and the BBC, despite having been taken over by the Tories in recent years, also manages to uphold standards (although Laura Kuenssberg can fuck right off). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-telegraph-must-have-got-their-asses-kicked-by-melanias-lawyers/828435.md?page=2)