Will Starmer Have To Replace Lammy?
News1 min ago
3 strikes and you're out
17 Answers
A lot of Newspapers seems to think this is a good idea in criminal justice.
But should it apply to them?
3 sucessful libel cases against them in a year and they lose the right to publish?
But should it apply to them?
3 sucessful libel cases against them in a year and they lose the right to publish?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And deprive US billionaires of �4 million payouts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/19/da ilymail.associatednewspapers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/mar/19/da ilymail.associatednewspapers
Can you fault this assessment of the pianist Liberace?
"I spoke to sad but kindly men on this newspaper who have met every celebrity coming from America for the past 30 years. They say that this deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavored, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love has had the biggest reception and impact on London since Charlie Chaplin arrived at the same station, Waterloo, on September 12,1921.
This appalling man - and I use the word appalling in no other than its true sense of terrifying - has hit this country in a way that is as violent as Churchill receiving the cheers on V-E Day.
He reeks with emetic language that can only make grown men long for a quiet corner, an aspidistra, a handkerchief, and the old heave-ho. Without doubt, he is the biggest sentimental vomit of all time. Slobbering over his mother, winking at his brother, and counting the cash at every second, this superb piece of calculating candy-floss has an answer for every situation."
"There must be something wrong with us that our teenagers longing for sex and our middle aged matrons fed up with sex alike should fall for such a sugary mountain of jingling claptrap wrapped up in such a preposterous clown".
Nevertheless, the Daily Mirror had to pay him substantial libel damages.
"I spoke to sad but kindly men on this newspaper who have met every celebrity coming from America for the past 30 years. They say that this deadly, winking, sniggering, snuggling, chromium-plated, scent-impregnated, luminous, quivering, giggling, fruit-flavored, mincing, ice-covered heap of mother love has had the biggest reception and impact on London since Charlie Chaplin arrived at the same station, Waterloo, on September 12,1921.
This appalling man - and I use the word appalling in no other than its true sense of terrifying - has hit this country in a way that is as violent as Churchill receiving the cheers on V-E Day.
He reeks with emetic language that can only make grown men long for a quiet corner, an aspidistra, a handkerchief, and the old heave-ho. Without doubt, he is the biggest sentimental vomit of all time. Slobbering over his mother, winking at his brother, and counting the cash at every second, this superb piece of calculating candy-floss has an answer for every situation."
"There must be something wrong with us that our teenagers longing for sex and our middle aged matrons fed up with sex alike should fall for such a sugary mountain of jingling claptrap wrapped up in such a preposterous clown".
Nevertheless, the Daily Mirror had to pay him substantial libel damages.
Oh incidently Libel has a fair comment defense.
Expressions of opinion, based upon true facts, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest may be protected.
You're perfectly entitled to express an opinion providing you've evidence to base it on.
I suspect that the Sun can have had no such evidence on which to support the "boring" charge against William Roach (Ken Barlow) nor the Mirror of all that bile against Liberache.
Expressions of opinion, based upon true facts, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest may be protected.
You're perfectly entitled to express an opinion providing you've evidence to base it on.
I suspect that the Sun can have had no such evidence on which to support the "boring" charge against William Roach (Ken Barlow) nor the Mirror of all that bile against Liberache.
Liberace's case was that the piece suggested he was homosexual. Of course he was but he tried to keep that a secret . Late in his life, his live-in lover, a man, sued him for 'palimony', maintenance, which did tend to establish the fact !.
As lawyers are wont to say " The bigger the truth, the bigger the libel" meaning that the victim is eagerest to sue, in an effort to stop publication,if the statement is both serious and true. If a statement is patently false they may just laugh it off, as obviously absurd, and not bother with suing.
As lawyers are wont to say " The bigger the truth, the bigger the libel" meaning that the victim is eagerest to sue, in an effort to stop publication,if the statement is both serious and true. If a statement is patently false they may just laugh it off, as obviously absurd, and not bother with suing.
Well Private Eye shouldn't make accusations without evidence.
They're not the Police
Just because it turned out that they were right didn't stop it from being libelous at the time.
If Liberache didn't want to come out it was hardly the Papers place to forcibly out him!
It's not as if there was a public interest issue.
If you want to publish something it must be demonstrably true or opinion based on firm evidence.
Does that really seem too much to ask?
They're not the Police
Just because it turned out that they were right didn't stop it from being libelous at the time.
If Liberache didn't want to come out it was hardly the Papers place to forcibly out him!
It's not as if there was a public interest issue.
If you want to publish something it must be demonstrably true or opinion based on firm evidence.
Does that really seem too much to ask?
The Daily Mirror's defence in the Liberace case was that the piece did not say either that Liberace was homosexual or suggest that he was a practising one.Were that so, their defence of fair comment on a public performer should have succeeded. (He was every bit as described, in case jake, you've never seen any of his act and his appearances) His case was that there was a clear innuendo that he was a) homosexual and b) practising.
To support his case he denied his homosexuality, which was a lie. He did the same in a case in America.He committed perjury.
Saying that Lord Archer used a prostitute might also be thought an intrusion into private life. He also won damages for libel. He committed perjury, having a false diary introduced into evidence to show he had an alibi. He was jailed.
It is not the purpose of our libel law to give protection or profit to liars, liars who are happy to lie on oath. The real problem is that our defamation law is heavily biased in favour of claimants, which is why we get 'libel tourists', people with no connection with Britain suing people with no connection with Britain, in British courts, on the basis of 'publication' in an obscure foreign journal which has had half a dozen copies read in Britain, of some 'innuendo' The US has a proposed law to stop such judgments being enforced in US courts.
Had our law been like that of other countries e.g the US , crooks like Robert Maxwell would have been exposed very quickly. He'd been declared a man unfit to run a public company. That could be reported, because it was a decision of an oficial body (as the DTI). Anything hinting at his subsequent misbehaviour was hidden by his use of the libel law.
To support his case he denied his homosexuality, which was a lie. He did the same in a case in America.He committed perjury.
Saying that Lord Archer used a prostitute might also be thought an intrusion into private life. He also won damages for libel. He committed perjury, having a false diary introduced into evidence to show he had an alibi. He was jailed.
It is not the purpose of our libel law to give protection or profit to liars, liars who are happy to lie on oath. The real problem is that our defamation law is heavily biased in favour of claimants, which is why we get 'libel tourists', people with no connection with Britain suing people with no connection with Britain, in British courts, on the basis of 'publication' in an obscure foreign journal which has had half a dozen copies read in Britain, of some 'innuendo' The US has a proposed law to stop such judgments being enforced in US courts.
Had our law been like that of other countries e.g the US , crooks like Robert Maxwell would have been exposed very quickly. He'd been declared a man unfit to run a public company. That could be reported, because it was a decision of an oficial body (as the DTI). Anything hinting at his subsequent misbehaviour was hidden by his use of the libel law.
jake-the-peg
The libel law is highly flawed as fredpuli47's excellent post has pointed out.
To base a rule whereby a newspaper faces loss of trade and profit (and jobs) for a year based on the accumulation of successful libel claiments is a very poor idea.
You may stop made up tittle tattle about celebs, but you would kill any investigative journalism as proprietors would be fearful of printing anything contenious for fear of losing their business.
The libel law is highly flawed as fredpuli47's excellent post has pointed out.
To base a rule whereby a newspaper faces loss of trade and profit (and jobs) for a year based on the accumulation of successful libel claiments is a very poor idea.
You may stop made up tittle tattle about celebs, but you would kill any investigative journalism as proprietors would be fearful of printing anything contenious for fear of losing their business.
Suing or defending in a libel action needs considerable wealth. " Ken Barlow", Willam Roach has been mentioned. He sued the Sun, the libel being that he was as boring in real life as he was when in character. The Sun offered him �50,000, which he refused as inadequate. At the trial he was awarded �50,000. The Sun had paid �50,000 into court when they made their offer. As he won no more than the sum in court, he was liable for all his own legal costs from the very beginning and all the legal costs, from the date of the payment in to court, of the Sun. He was bankrupted .
That's how our law is such a weapon to wealthy crooks.They start with the law being heavily in their favour, unlike the case in other civil actions, and the costs run up to enormous amounts on both sides, enough to ruin many an ordinary defendant . If the defendant loses they have to pay damages and the costs of the winner. There is a great incentive to offer the crook a few thousand and undertake never to allude to him or his businesses again (the latter being his main aim, secrecy ). One such case is enough, because other publishers will know of it and stay silent about the person and his businesses.One case can gag all..
The mere threat of action is usually enough to stop a piece being published.Newspapers employ lawyers to 'libel read' copy, to warn of any risk of action. The cost of defending, or settling, over some innuendo is such that it's easier and cheaper not to risk printing the story at all.
That's how our law is such a weapon to wealthy crooks.They start with the law being heavily in their favour, unlike the case in other civil actions, and the costs run up to enormous amounts on both sides, enough to ruin many an ordinary defendant . If the defendant loses they have to pay damages and the costs of the winner. There is a great incentive to offer the crook a few thousand and undertake never to allude to him or his businesses again (the latter being his main aim, secrecy ). One such case is enough, because other publishers will know of it and stay silent about the person and his businesses.One case can gag all..
The mere threat of action is usually enough to stop a piece being published.Newspapers employ lawyers to 'libel read' copy, to warn of any risk of action. The cost of defending, or settling, over some innuendo is such that it's easier and cheaper not to risk printing the story at all.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Jobs & Education7 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
So Who Did Joe And Jill Biden Vote For?
News10 mins ago
