The Telegraph must have got their asses kicked by Melania's lawyers

[UltraVires]

@Quartz

That depends upon how important and how rich you are.

I assume Bercow’s wife is sufficiently important (not sure about rich). I just don’t understand how she libeled McAlpine. Her tweet was obviously tongue in cheek and was in reference to the sexual assault allegations that were reported.

However, at no time did she imply or state that McAlpine was clearly, likely, or otherwise guilty of the allegations, just that they had been made. Taken in the worst possible light, maybe her comments could be construed that these allegations were made and that she hoped that they were true, and if you really dig deep into her brain, maybe she believed that they were true. But so what?

IOW, what factual statement did she make about McAlpine that was verifiably false? To say that newspaper X reported that Senator Y committed bestiality with his dog and based upon my low opinion of Senator Y, I believe the allegations are true…that is not a statement of fact subject to libel, it is an opinion.

Has the UK trashed the common law of libel?

[Chefguy]

@Dr.Strangelove

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.

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:

[Quartz]

@UltraVires

I assume Bercow’s wife is sufficiently important (not sure about rich).

Bercow was - still is, as of writing - the Speaker of the House of Commons, and as such the First Commoner of the Land. This means that he is important. And so, by extension, are his family. And he gets a large salary - over £150,000. And he gets housing.

I just don’t understand how she libeled McAlpine.

I don’t recall. But his lawyers convinced the court at the time.

To say that newspaper X reported that Senator Y committed bestiality with his dog and based upon my low opinion of Senator Y, I believe the allegations are true…that is not a statement of fact subject to libel, it is an opinion.

There is an offence in English law called repeating a libel. I’m sure Ak84 can give chapter and verse.

Has the UK trashed the common law of libel?

Not at all. The English law is that just as when in GQ or GD someone cries “Cite?” you’ve got to be able to prove the truth of your statement.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Quartz

I don’t recall. But his lawyers convinced the court at the time.

MacAlpine had been granted an injunction preventing his name being published in connection with the allegations. Sally Bercow was judged to have broken the injunction. Many other people did, but she was the highest profile one.

Obviously the whole injunction business is a mess in itself.

[UltraVires]

@Quartz

There is an offence in English law called repeating a libel. I’m sure Ak84 can give chapter and verse.

Not at all. The English law is that just as when in GQ or GD someone cries “Cite?” you’ve got to be able to prove the truth of your statement.

But, at least in my mind, that isn’t repeating a libel. It is commenting on current events. Let’s say tomorrow that the BBC reports Jeremy Corbyn was arrested for domestic battery (just making things up). My buddy comes over and I say, “Hey, did you hear that Jeremy Corbyn was arrested for domestic battery?”

However it turns out that it was Jeremy Cobrin, little nobody in rural England who was arrested. Am I guilty of repeating a libel? How in the hell do people talk about current events in the UK without risking monetary sanctions?

What if I said instead, “Hey, did you see the report on the BBC which alleged that Jeremy Corbyn was arrested for domestic battery?” Does that save me?

@Baron_Greenback

MacAlpine had been granted an injunction preventing his name being published in connection with the allegations. Sally Bercow was judged to have broken the injunction. Many other people did, but she was the highest profile one.

Obviously the whole injunction business is a mess in itself.

An injunction??? UK Courts have power over the entire public and not just the parties before it? Does the UK not have free speech guarantees? People cannot debate whether it is true, maybe its true, doesn’t sound like its true, sounds fishy to me, etc.? What if the allegations turned out to be true and then the alleged victims sued those saying it was false for libel? Is commenting either way exposing you to damages?

Further, since I am posting in a thread where I know that people located in the UK are receiving and reading this post, have I subjected myself to UK libel laws? This is astounding to me.

[UltraVires]

@Quartz

Not at all. The English law is that just as when in GQ or GD someone cries “Cite?” you’ve got to be able to prove the truth of your statement.

Almost missing the edit window: There is no truth or falsity in an opinion. Take these two statements:

1. I believe Dr. Ford was lying when she accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.
2. I believe Dr. Ford was telling the truth when she accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

Whichever of those statements you choose, they are absolutely true if you believe them. It doesn’t matter whether the assault happened or not.

Further, take this statement:

“Kavanaugh seems like the self-entitled rich boy who would sexually assault someone.”

Again, merely a statement of belief. But even further, when a person without intimate knowledge of the situation makes a statement, it is assumed by any speaker of the English language that he or she is simply stating a belief. If a poster here makes the statement:

“Kavanaugh raped Dr. Ford. The evidence is clear.” It is also clear by that statement that it is the poster who has looked at the evidence and came to his own conclusion based upon that evidence and is therefore an opinion.

[Jackmannii]

One of the worst things historically about British libel/defamation law in my opinion was the chilling of speech on scientific matters (an example being the British Chiropractic Association’s attack on Simon Singh).

Supposedly the 2013 reforms have made it tougher to punish critics with dubious or outright bogus libel actions.

From the sound of things, the Telegraph really stepped in it with regards to its reporting on Melania Trump, to the point where you wonder what they did get right.

[Banquet_Bear]

@UltraVires

Does the UK not have free speech guarantees?

…is this a rhetorical question? This stuff really isn’t hard to look up. I’m astounded that you are astounded that different countries approach different things differently.

[Gestalt]

@Mk_VII

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.

Ah, I see. I wonder if that’s the wisest course, at this point, considering that much of the negativity/maliciousness directed towards the royal family currently is based in (what one would assume is) largely speculative gossip.

If they started being extremely aggressive about suing for libel, given relatively strict British libel laws, I wonder how this would affect things. It seems that somehow the general public is at least aware of the “fake pregnancy” conspiracy; I wonder if that would have happened if Kensington Park was more lawsuit-happy. There’s a difference between this and, say, leaked nude pictures or phone conversations, etc.

[Jackmannii]

@The Stainless Steel Rat

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.

@TimeWinder

UK “Conservative” is wildly progressive by US standards.

“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.

[Mk_VII]

@UltraVires

My buddy comes over and I say, “Hey, did you hear that Jeremy Corbyn was arrested for domestic battery?”

However it turns out that it was Jeremy Cobrin, little nobody in rural England who was arrested. Am I guilty of repeating a libel?

No, that would be slander, as it isn’t printed (or recorded in reproducible form). Nor have you ‘published’ it.

[Quartz]

@Jackmannii

“Wildly progressive” does not apply to the Telegraph, at least what I’ve seen of its reporting.

The Telegraph is right-of-centre in UK terms, but it caters to everyone therein from the Dripping Wets to the Hard Right.

[UltraVires]

@Mk_VII

No, that would be slander, as it isn’t printed (or recorded in reproducible form). Nor have you ‘published’ it.

Fair enough. I email him.

[UltraVires]

@Banquet_Bear

…is this a rhetorical question? This stuff really isn’t hard to look up. I’m astounded that you are astounded that different countries approach different things differently.

Yes, I did look it up. It sounds like the old Soviet constitution where these grand freedoms are guaranteed with ten thousand exceptions in which the exceptions are largely the reason for the rule. It’s not hard to accept nice speech, or good speech, or speech you or a majority agrees with. You don’t need any grand principle to allow that.

Free speech means that the speech can cause someone “distress” for example. If this is the direction that some think that the United States should go in, then I am certainly against it.

[Banquet_Bear]

@UltraVires

Yes, I did look it up. It sounds like the old Soviet constitution where these grand freedoms are guaranteed with ten thousand exceptions in which the exceptions are largely the reason for the rule.

…LOL.

Well, I think we’ve learnt enough here that we can take your opinion on this topic with an extreme grain of salt.

[UltraVires]

@Banquet_Bear

…LOL.

Well, I think we’ve learnt enough here that we can take your opinion on this topic with an extreme grain of salt.

How about you respond with substance instead of with a personal attack?

[HurricaneDitka]

@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.

I wonder how much this little fiasco is going to drop their score.

[Banquet_Bear]

@UltraVires

How about you respond with substance instead of with a personal attack?

…it wasn’t a “personal attack.” It was an assessment of your argument. You think Article 10 is comparable to the old Soviet Constitution. You are welcome to think that: but I’m welcome to not take your opinion seriously.

[Muffin]

@UltraVires

It sounds like the old Soviet constitution where these grand freedoms are guaranteed with ten thousand exceptions in which the exceptions are largely the reason for the rule.

Here are the relevant sections from the 1936 constitution:

ARTICLE 46. Sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. are convened by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. twice a year.

Special sessions are convened by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. at its discretion or on the demand of one of the Union Republics.

ARTICLE 47. In the event of disagreement between the Soviet of the Union and the Soviet of Nationalities, the question is referred for settlement to a conciliation commission formed on a parity basis. If the conciliation commission fails to arrive at an agreement, or if its decision fails to satisfy one of the Chambers, the question is considered for a second time by the Chambers. Failing agreement between the two Chambers, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. dissolves the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. and orders new elections.

ARTICLE 48. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. at a joint sitting of both Chambers elects the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. consisting of a President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., sixteen Vice-Presidents, a Secretary of the Presidium and twenty-four members of the Presidium.

The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. is accountable to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. for all its activities.
ARTICLE 49. The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.:

Convenes the sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.;
Interprets laws of the U.S.S.R. in operation, issues decrees;
Dissolves the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. in conformity with article 47 of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and orders new elections;
Conducts referendums on its own initiative or on the demand of one of the Union Republics;
Annuls decisions and orders of the Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R. and of the Councils of People’s Commissars of the Union Republics in case they do not conform to law;
In the intervals between sessions of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., relieves of their posts and appoints People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R. on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars of the U.S.S.R., subject to subsequent confirmation by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.;
Awards decorations and confers titles of honor of the U.S.S.R.;
Exercises the right of pardon;
Appoints and removes the higher commands of the armed forces of the U.S.S.R.;
In the intervals between sessions of. the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., proclaims a state of war in the event of armed attack on the U.S.S.R., or whenever necessary to fulfill international treaty obligations concerning mutual defense against aggression
Orders general or partial mobilization;
Ratifies international, treaties;
Appoints and recalls plenipotentiary representatives of the U.S.S.R. to foreign states;
Receives the credentials and letters of recall of diplomatic representatives accredited to it by foreign states;
Proclaims martial law in separate localities or throughout the U.S.S.R. in the interests of the defense of the U.S.S.R. or for the purpose of ensuring public order and state security.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:

freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

1936 Constitution of the USSR, Part II

Let’s count your ten thousand exceptions. There is only one: the Presidium holding too much power, which used this power to destroy freedoms, rather than there being a balance of power as there is in today’s full democracies and even your flawed democracy despite your incarceration rate being the world’s highest today (depending on China’s veracity in reporting) and having been higher than the Soviet’s was in it’s gulag period ('cause in case you hadn’t noticed it, incarceration impedes freedom of expression in a biggly way). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries

Please do not take this as a personal attack. There is already a thread for that.

[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.