The UK is coming under increasing fire for its out-of-control libel laws. And the consequences of the laws are clear – journalists/bloggers are shying away from writing anything controversial when it involves someone who lives in the UK. Or, increasingly, someone who may be willing to litigate in the UK despite not living there.
Most recently the NY Times wrote about the issue, describing how science journalists, worried about being sued, are afraid of calling out bogus medical procedures:
The problem the libel laws create is not so much that critical stories can’t be written, but that they won’t be. As the conversations I had this summer show, for many journalists and their employers the potential for a libel case is a powerful deterrent to criticism: the pieces aren’t worth the hassle. Singh has commented that “if I successfully defend my article, I will have had to have put my career on hold for probably two years, and it will cost me perhaps £25,000 [about $41,500] because I am unlikely to recover all my costs. And if I lose my case, then it will cost me roughly £500,000 [$800,000]. Fighting and winning is bad enough; fighting and losing is catastrophic.” Most writers won’t take the risk. And who can blame them?
We have first hand experience fighting UK libel laws. Until now we’ve kept the fight on the back burner on our CrunchNotes blog. But recent developments are so absurd I’m moving the discussion here.
We were sued in the UK earlier this year by Sam Sethi, a man who started a company called Blognation. The post that was the subject of the lawsuit, and which gives a lot of background on his antics, is here. In a nutshell, he’s a very, very bad guy.
So bad in fact that he has been banned from being an owner or executive in any UK company until 2015 (he has ignored that court order, and the UK doesn’t seem inclined to enforce it). And most of his previous employees have gone on record talking about how he committed fraud and other crimes (see “our second response” here, as well as here and here).
So we chronicled the activities of a convicted fraudster, who has been accused of new crimes by employees. And our reward was a lawsuit that our attorneys told us not to fight, because a “win” would mean months or years in court and legal costs that could exceed £500,000. Instead, we declined to participate in the circus, and a default judgement was awarded against us.
So what’s next? Well, my attorneys have advised me to stay away from the UK for a few years, which is difficult because I spent part of my childhood there, and worked in London earlier this decade. So all those friends have to visit me now. But luckily UK libel judgements are generally not enforceable in the U.S., so our core business is safe from this lunatic.
And by the way, Sethi, in one of his manic fits, has reached out to apologize to me. He sent the first email below to Paul Carr, who has covered this story and its absurdity in the past, and it appears as if he is genuinely remorseful. But his actual apology email to me, also below, lacks any of that remorse. And of course there’s no mention of dismissing the lawsuit. We weren’t going to publish either email until we saw Sethi’s promised public apology, but six weeks later it still hasn’t appeared, and now the UK banning order has come to light despite Sethi denying its existence. Yet more lies.
If the UK wants to continue to suppress free speech by facilitating more nonsense like this, they certainly have the right and ability to do so. But maybe it’s time for them to take a new look at those libel laws. A personal dispute between two tech bloggers is one thing. But stopping the public from knowing about useless and possibly dangerous medical practices is another.
The Theoretical Apology:
Hi Paul
I want to quickly thank you for your open letter, not that I enjoyed it but It really made me step back and think what am doing? When multiple friends tell you that you have crossed so many moral lines in writing those emails, it finally made me realise what a dick I have been for the past few years blaming other people actions for the downfall and failure of blognation when the ultimate blame lies with me.
Thus I would like to initially write Mike a private email [xxxxxxx@gmail.com] personally apologising for my appalling behaviour and then I plan to write an open letter of apology on my blog.
So could you please confirm that the email addr above is Mike’s and please accept my apologies for my act(s) of stupidity that drove our friendship to the point of breaking. I hope you can start to forgive me and I know it may take many years before you could once again call me a friend but this is my first step in reconciliation.
Thanks in advance
The Non-Apology:
Hello Mike
Well I’ve procrastinated long enough about sending you this email but given the number of private emails that I’ve had published on Techcrunch, I guess it’s not surprising I’m mindful to be cautious.
That said I’m ever hopeful that this email will remain confidential between us. Therefore after careful consideration and advise from friends I would like to offer you my personal apology for my churlish behaviour in the past eighteen months and especially in regard to blognation and hope that we can now bring an end to this war of words.
It struck me as I wrote this email that it was about two years ago that we meet in London to discuss starting TCUK. It was obvious that London’s Startups needed a voice and I am pleased Mike B is doing such a good job in pushing out that voice across Europe.
I was going to write a war and peace email covering all the things that happened in the past two years both good and bad but frankly it’s water under the bridge and nothing I can say or do will change the past now. The damage has already been done.
However one thing I will always regret was trying to hide the funding delay from the editors simply because you might have published the fact. Sadly I was unaware xxxxx was still giving you leaked information, I just knew confidential docs were being leaked somehow.
At the end of the day, it matters not what xxxxx did or what you might have done, I was wrong to do so and no one else was responsible for my decisions. In this age of trust and transparency I should have simply told the editors of the delay and dealt with the fallout openly and honestly.
Regarding the termsheet I have to admit I was deeply upset that you chose to publish it even after we spoke but as Paul Carr said recently that was just business and a chance to bury a potential competitor.
Even after that I was still blindly considering trying to keep blognation going against all the odds with a new funding offer but realised that I had lost the trust of the editors and the various troll comments on TC hurt especially from people I knew. As you know to your own cost the mob can be vicious when it decides to turn on you but when people you consider friends do so it hurts even more so.
But it was the death of Marc that finally made me realise this had to stop. I was accused of his death, theft from you and forgery and much more. None of which were true but people believed it. With hindsight I wish I had never started blognation.
So I would like to reiterate I am sorry for the hurt and blame I levelled at you. In addition I have already apologised privately to the vast majority of the editors (not all) for my actions.
So what happens next I have no idea. My reputation is in pieces and in the eyes of many I am no longer considered a trusted agent (ala chris brogan). So for now I am taking timeout to spend more time with my family and friends and review thinds once again.
So all it leaves me to say for now is good luck Mike with Techcrunch.
Sam
That is nothing. Here if you even mutter a word that could be anti-Islamic you get sued and loose.
Some examples:
http://www.dail...slim-guest.html
http://www.topn...-racism-2137605
http://www.alar...4/04/69883.html
http://www.dail...teach-wife.html
http://infidels...-to-sue-uk.html
The UK is loosing free speech faster than Michael Phelps can swim
I think you have been opportunistic in bringing Islam into the discussion. Reading those articles you cite, they demonstrate how difficult it can be to apply the law and how reactionary attitudes arise out of blatant, perhaps deliberate, misreading.
In the story about the bed and breakfast couple charged for defending their beliefs, the police themselves were overzealous in charging the couple. In a few other articles, particular Islamists only threaten to sue British nationals for their views, which has nothing to do with libel law itself. These are just provocative threats to sue.
Show me that UK law has a tendency to find in favour of those accused of anti-Muslim sentiment and I just might trust your point of view. The idea that the UK is losing free speech is an inordinately unreasonable and inaccurate summary. We talk of what we will and shall always do so. The British do now cower.
Sorry, “do not cower.”
Do you have any examples that don’t involve Muslims? That just seems kind of… strange.
Spot the racist!
Citing articles from the Daily Mail…. bingo!
I think UK libel law does need clarifying, at least because the onus is on the defendant to prove he is innocent, rather than on the prosecution to prove guilt.
Mike also points out how expensive defending yourself can be, which led to him ignoring the action.
Unfortunately, it is only reasonable that the UK courts find in favour of the claimant in cases where the defendant makes no plea. What else can the courts do? If they simply dismissed the case by default in such situations, then no cases would ever be brought to court because no defendant would ever bother to turn up.
Oscar Wilde fell foul of the UK libel laws and we continue to feel its wrath. It’s quaintly outdated and needs revising, though Mike’s personal difficulties are of his own making and he should have known that travel would be difficult if he deigned not to defend himself from Sethi’s ridiculous action.
For comparative reasons, the United States is widely considered a very litigious place, so the UK isn’t alone in needing correction. The law is an ass everywhere. In addition, the UK is home to some of the most vicious newspapers in the world who seem to enjoy a great deal of freedom, despite occasional action brought successfully by those who feature in those papers.
Stick together a letter that we English people can send off to our members of parliament and we’ll get it lifted. That’s how it works here; something gets fucked up, we complain and to please their constituents and in hope that we’ll vote for them they lift it.
Seriously, worth a go. I’m down for it, doesn’t even need that many people.
Silly england.
So, is Michael Savage’s libel suit against Jacqui Smith somehow taking place here in the UK courts? She literally banned him from coming here due to his big mouth. Same thing happened to Geert Wilders. Does not bode well for free speech at all.
I don’t think he’s brought the action yet has he?
Having said that, he doesn’t really have a hope in hell of winning as it would be hugely against the public interest for the Home Secretary to have to consider libel when she issues banning orders. Same in any country.
Savage was banned not for having a big mouth but because the UK has laws against inciting racial hatred and there was real concern that that was the purpose of Savage’s visit. Same with Wilders and countless Muslim clerics who have a history of inciting violence against racial groups. There’s a strong freedom of speech argument for allowing them in but a strong ‘fire in a crowded theatre’ argument for not.
I certainly wouldn’t be allowed into the US if I had a history of inciting violence through hate speech. Foreign visitors don’t get to rely on the 1st Amendment. Wilders is the interesting case as banning him over-rode European freedom of movement law. Savage has no automatic right of entry to the UK.
Fair enough. Good response. I had forgotten about the concerns over Savage inciting racial hatred. I can tell you that if he had tried out some of his famous quotes about Islam here in London, there would most definitely be a very serious problem.
Agreed.
On the other hand the libel law in the US is too restrictive, as we can see from the many rabid political types on both left and right (but more on the right) who are allowed to use Big Lie tactics and outrageously defamatory personal attacks without any penalty whatsoever.
Its called “1st Amendment Right” – and your Supreme Court has upheld this constitutional right above all others. This is why so many litigants – do take their action (a case being available from the point of dissemination) in England because the 1st Amendment is not afforded as a “defense” (evidently). Indeed, the US takes a ridiculously opposite approach – that is, as you suggest, one which allows and perhaps even condones – unless sufficient evidence to the contrary is provided which is often very difficult to ascertain – the promotion of defamatory material.
Defamation law in the UK is only available to litigants with deep pockets – but arguably, it is those with deep pockets that have the most to loose from defamatory material published and disseminated across the world. The balance, whether fortunately or unfortunately struck in this instance, is that Mike is unable to go to the UK because of his non-appearance pleading and the ruling evidently going against him.
Many US citizens seem awe struck that Commonwealth nations adopt a more restrictive approach to the enforcement of libel and defamatory laws – but at least there is a cause of action available to those defamed. In the United States, if the situation was indeed reversed and Sam Sethi wrote equivalent statements about Mike – its a very probable that a 1st amendment defense would be available to Mr. Sethi or even if an action was accepted by the courts – a defense of fair comment or even truth.
Of course this is a TC blog – so I side with Mike
– but the balance that US Citizens don’t realize exists is that you are basically free to say what you want – true or not – and a viable legal defense exists upheld through your constitution. In nations external to your own, the freedom of such liberal media rights doesn’t exist and perhaps with just cause – be able to say what you want, whenever you want, isn’t always acceptable either. This is why US and European litigants go to the UK – because at the very least, an expensive legal battle starts – and the defamee realizes – after a long battle – that a more adequate choice of words should be used in the future.
Then again
You can ignore this – ala this post haha
ps just to clarify – i was assuming if Mr Sethi was a US citizen for my argument above – obviously, as a foreigner Constitutional rights are not afforded – the whole point of Mr Sethi taking the action in the UK was to get an enforceable ruling.
Mike – appeal and file a counter claim – then you very well may get a retraction of the case.
The “non-apology” actually seems like an apology. Am I missing something?
yes. it’s apathetic, flaccid, and speaks not a whit to the judgement. that’s what it looks like when a narcissist sees the blame everywhere else but in themselves. note that his strongest critiques are reserved to those he perceives as having done him wrong. finger: always pointing elsewhere.
sure, he says, “i was wrong,” but that’s just an aside in his overarching “oh well” theme of water-under-the-bridge. he just can’t stand the idea of anybody not liking him, so he sends out a weemy little message to those he cynically needs for his self-worth in the hope that he won’t have to feel bad about himself. shameless.
Its not only Britain that is loosing in this fight.
The whole of democratic Europe is in danger, and the USA is next..
I would really recommend watching this movie:
http://www.thethirdjihad.com/
It talks about the Democratic tools being used in the hands of the ones that don’t really wants democracy.
Mike, regarding Sethi in general, I’m with you, but I think calling his latest email a “non-apology” is a bit unfair. He didn’t use an apology as an excuse to talk about something else or promote an agenda (that I could see), and it seemed fairly sincere. Just sayin’.
well, i disagree. and any sincere apology would have been posted on his blog along with a dismissal of the case.
So only a public apology counts as an apology? Now that you have released his letter to the public, and the public seem to think it is an apology rather than a ‘non-apology’, can you now forgive Sam?
the man sued me and has a default judgement against me that he has shown no intention of dismissing. his apology is a non apology. get real.
i just finished reading the apology (was trying to avoide reading it) and it seems like he’s saything things without really saying anything. i do that when i want to avoide things. hmm. i think it’s a half apology??? i mean i have to give him kudos for getting to the point where he could email you again, but really he sounds like the same guy. oh well. i hope your publishing this doesn’t backfire and that both of you and everyone else from blognation, tc, friends and people in the community can all move on from this. so here’s to him dismissing this suit cause it’s pointless. i think he knew/knows exactly what he’s doing.
back to uk libel law…
A court must overturn a default judgement, not Sam. I don’t think it lies with Sam to overturn the decision. You decided not to defend yourself and the court has no choice but to find in Sam’s favour. Seems logical enough. I would hire a UK lawyer and find out the best way to get the decision overturned and request assistance from Sam as necessary – asking him to put his money where his mouth is. Sam may be reluctant to perjure himself by contradicting the statements he would have made in taking you to court.
Yes, the ‘non-apology’ does sound like an apology. Wasn’t ‘The Non-Apology’ an episode of Seinfeld? Arrington is a bit like George sometimes.
“I was accused of his death, theft from you and forgery and much more. None of which were true but people believed it.”
if none of it was true, why did he apologize?
You make a good point actually, Mike. I remember reading all the in depth articles about Sam on this site. Sam is one dizzingly dishonest and nasty character.
Reading his email, the apology may well be genuine, though, for you, I suppose that no apology can ever be enough to cover his wicked and unprofessional manner.
Perhaps the argument is not about whether his apology was genuine or not, but about how his actions change in the coming years. Actions speaking a thousand words.
mike – perhaps respond with the age old adiom
“tie a knot with your tongue, you cant undo it with your teeth”
Because he’s upset you and regrets doing that?
Because he’s impacted your ability to travel freely, and regrets doing that?
Because he’s lost your friendship and trust, something he valued, and is remorseful as a result?
Because he feels he blamed you unfairly for things in the past, and regrets that?
Because he’s caused you or your company to lose money or respect, and he regrets that?
I’m sure there are many more reasons why someone would apologise and mean it.
yes, he seems very sorry. that he got caught.
Lol. Yes, I think there’s a lot of truth in that comment.
i agree with this. i was going to say sam sethi is crazy, but based on all that’s i’ve read from him, about him, from people who know him, i think he’s a smart guy who’s remorseful about screwing up because he got caught. oh well. goodluck to him, and to you too mike.
the uk’s libel laws are just crazy, but then again i think delacroix and tom make good points about the difference’s between the two countries.
I think if he were truly sorry, a good first step would be to dismiss the claim for damages and costs which are what prevents Michael from travelling, and which result from a lawsuit that he is now apologising for.
and reimburse my $50k in legal fees so far.
Yeah, and that.
Agreed, but he is not stupid. The judgment will stay in place in the hopes that some assets accidentally cross into UK jurisdiction.
He’s apologizing to make himself look better to uninformed third parties. A real apology would be a nullification of the judgment.
No, a real apology would not nullify the judgment. That is not up to Sam. He may be able to contribute to the process of nullification, but the court has made a decision based on Mike’s failure to turn up and defend himself. This is in the hands of the courts, not Sam.
delacroix, that is just absolutely not true.
I don’t get it. A journalist should be able to say anything they want about anyone they want without being able to prove it in a court of law? Any court of law? Just because you can provide links on the internet to support your claims does not make a statement true. It’s up to a court to decide that.
It’s up to the journalist to provide some proof. How can it cost $500,000.00 to show the proof to a judge? It would only be the cost of photocopying his proof and sending a lawyer to the courthouse with the documents. Then let the judge decide. If you are so sure you’ll lose that you don’t even do that, then I can’t muster much sympathy. If he was really advised not to offer a defense, then I think he got bad legal advice.
What is the downside to a limited defense? He paid a lawyer anyway. Why not defend the statements? Just saying your court doesn’t have jurisdiction doesn’t help your cause.
People are assuming judges are idiots and would convict even if the facts were incontrovertibly against the subject of the libel claim. Judges are in fact human and only look at the facts as presented. If you don’t defend, you automatically concede.
At the very least, if someone libeled me, I would want them kept out of my country, if I couldn’t collect on a judgement that they would not or could not defend.
Put yourself in the defendants shoes for a minute, why should you bring a case in the country of the person you believe has libeled you?
@M. Pennarun: “It would only be the cost of photocopying his proof and sending a lawyer to the courthouse with the documents.”
You’re kidding, right? With that statement you proved that you know less than nil about how the law works.
If you defend an action in a foreign country – even in a limited way – then you accept that country’s jurisdiction. The reason a litigant (not defendant) should bring the case in the country where the defendant lives is because that (in this case) is where the libel was published.
“At the very least, if someone libeled me, I would want them kept out of my country”
Again, you show your lack of knowledge about the law. This isn’t a banning order; it’s just a question of Arrington being ordered to appear in court if he visits the UK.
Nit-pick: You’re referring to the UK’s libel law when in fact you mean England and Wales’s libel law.
Scotland (where I happen to live) has a separate and different legal framework, and instead of libel there’s a civil offense of defamation. As I understand it, the key difference is that for defamation to occur, malice must be present … making it a lot harder to obtain a conviction.
Funnily enough, a lot fewer lawsuits for defamation are brought in Scotland than for libel in England. I wonder why?
Good grief. Just put down the Atrocity Archives and read this post. Having a ‘worlds collide’ moment….
And why is it the law always seems to be fairer in Scotland? Is it recompense for our tax policies?
You wonder why? Because Scotland is much, much smaller than England.
The Singh case is indeed bad – but unusual. And it’s hysterical nonsense to suggest that it’s indicative of any broader suppression of free speech through the use of libel laws.
Your whining about your own case highlights a different issue – that trained and experienced journalists know how to work within the law to get across information. Too many bloggers, alas, know only how to spout opinion, and then complain when their incompetent and unprofessional drivelling is called to account.
And, of course, if you want examples of how tort law is abused extensively and systematically to crush dissenting voices, cow opponents or simply make money from ludicrous claims, you really need to look to the US.
Why shouldn’t we expect those writing in the press to stand by their words or apologise and retract the offending ones?
Tell Sam that grammar is his friend.
That was not a non-apology, that was *an apology*. What else do you want him to say. Shame on you for publishing his email. How petty.
this is what you get when you have 12 years of politically correct do gooders.
its a running joke in britain, we as near as damn it have thought crimes.
Once upon a time, an old couple went to a leisure centre (gym with a swiming pool basically- not sure if that translates) and in the foyer, they found a lesbian gay bi sexual and transexual support group leaflet. the old couple being fairly religious decided to put a Christian leaflet next to the lgbt one, and subsequently recieved an extremely stern ticking off from the local bobby.
that isnt a homophobic rant, its something that was reported on the nightly news, as the comedic ending.
at least theres an election soon, so hopefully these laws will get repealed.
Oh, please – citations needed.
http://ifyoulik...golivethere.com
The apology seemed pretty sincere to me. What is he expected to do, grovel and plead? It takes courage to write as much as he did.
Also, the fact that it was a private e-mail and not a public one actually makes it probably more sincere. A public letter could easily be seen as a PR stunt. A private letter means just what it says.
I think it is pretty petty to publish a private e-mail publicly. Especially when the writer specifically asks that it remain private.
The fact that he didn’t dismiss the lawsuit is not evidence of insincerity. it may simply not have crossed his mind at the time he wrote the e-mail. Mike should have first asked him to dismiss it before writing this post- and only wrote it if he didn’t.
it’s called giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
uhhuh
We were sued in the UK earlier this year by Sam Sethi, a man who started a company called Blognation. The post that was the subject of the lawsuit, and which gives a lot of background on his antics, is here. In a nutshell, he’s a very, very bad guy. [From the link: So Sam Sethi, former TechCrunch UK editor ....]
I see a pattern here …
Either it’s very hard to find decent individuals from the UK to write for Techcrunch or whoever is making the hiring decisions should let somebody better at character judgement do the hiring.
A pattern of one?
Stop being racist, you lazy fool.
To be very honest, why use email at all? Pick up the phone or better yet speak to them in person.
Dicking around with emails leads to all sorts of miscommunication and can further aggravate the problem.
I entirely agree that the medical should know about medical procedures and if they work or not. Thanks for making this issue out in the open here.
There is a current epetition to 10 Downing Street to reform UK libel laws. Given the big hole Gordon Brown is currently in, it appears that any popular epetition is getting his attention. Any UK views should add their names to the list.
http://tinyurl.com/pyp588
However this maybe a fight that GB isnt willing to take up as I suspect the UK legal system generates a lot of income from international legal tourism.
i feel something brown coming my way
Mike is dead on correct. This is a non-apology. This is simply another one of Sam’s tactics to deflect the blame away from himself and buy himself a little breathing room.
Anyone that thinks differently simply hasn’t had the misfortune to have had dealings with Sam.
This is another one of his patterns. Sam does something awful, unethical, illegal or abusive and then he either follows that up with excuses such as having been drunk when he did whatever it was, he flat out denies having done whatever it was he did, or he offers up a squeemy little apology intended for the afflicted’s eyes only with a promise to publish it to a larger audience later or do whatever else was necessary to make things right.
However, what he does next is not post a public apology or make things right but revert directly back to being the bastard he was to set things off initially.
Don’t believe this is a pattern? Check it out – almost the exact same thing here: http://owstarr..../08/sam-speaks/
And this is not the only time he’s done this. He does it all the time.
Personally in addition to most likely having narcissistic addictive disorder the guy is a complete and total sociopath. He not only doesn’t care how his actions impact others, he isn’t even capable of considering the possibility that what he says, does, or fails to do could be harmful to other people.
He also willfully flaunts the law, has no compunction about perjuring himself in written documents provided to a court of law, and is on the record with so many lies that the one thing about Sam you can say with certainty is that you can tell he’s lying one simple way: if his mouth is moving. Seriously.
Oliver Starr
yes.
God bless America.
The most litigious nation on earth? Where lobbyists have a disproportionate say in legislation? Where free speech leads to wild and inaccurate claims that are protected, unthinkingly, by an outdated sense of constitution? No country is perfect, but stop being so blinkered about your own nation. You self-satisfied fool.
I think there’s no question that Sethi should really have withdrawn any and all claims against Arrington and/or Techcrunch before even attempting to apologise.
And I thus can see why Arrington is aggrieved.
But, three small points:
(i) Isn’t it rather vindictive to publish Sethi’s full address and date of birth here? It would have been trivial to blank them out and not affected the message. (I know it is public domain information right now, but there’s a difference between being published on a major tech blog and languishing on the Companies House website. Besides the UK law on Company Director’s addresses changes next week as a result of hate attacks on directors of medical research companies and their families).
(ii) Sethi was disqualified as a company director under Section 6 of the Company Directors disqualification act 1986 which says “…that his conduct as a director of that [insolvent] company (either taken alone or taken together with his conduct as a director of any other company or companies) makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.”
A court has thus certainly decided his conduct has been bad, but this definitely does not make him “a convicted fraudster”. Calling him one is, um, probably libellous.
(iii) Arrington says above Sethi has ignored the disqualifaction order “and the UK doesn’t seem inclined to enforce it”. Ignoring an order like this and becoming a director or shadow director of another company is a criminal offence. But the government can’t act unless it knows about a breach. It has, via The Insolvency Service, set up an enforcement hotline which “enables people to pass on information about defiant directors and undischarged bankrupts who blatently disregard disqualification orders”. The number (in the UK) is 0845 601 3546.
Tony