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.
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.
<Sigh> The first rule of journalism: GET THE FACTS RIGHT.
: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.
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.)
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.
How could you possibly harm Melania Trump’s reputation? What were the damages? 50p?
You’re adorable. Don’t ever change.
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.
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, Muslimsand anyone suggesting that Brexit might not turn out to be all sunshine and roses. 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).