I’m writing this from the ‘club section’ (whatever that is) of San Francisco’s AT&T Park where, if I understand the scoring correctly (I don’t), the Cubs are leading the Giants 4-1. I’ve just eaten my second hot dog and I’m debating whether to buy a baseball cap emblazoned with the words ‘Go Giants’. I also just turned to my British friend Andrew to make an amusing American pop culture reference, prefacing my observation with the word “dude…”.
I mention all of this for two reasons. First, I hope it will make you understand why my column this week reads like it’s been written by a man distracted by the fear of at any minute being beaned by a baseball, and second so you’ll appreciate all of the efforts I’m making to Love America.
You see, over the past weeks I’ve realised how sensitive you former colonials are to foreigners opining on any aspect of your country, particularly if we compare it to our own. Almost two weeks after Techcrunch 50, I’m still getting hate mail over my post suggesting that your flag be moved two feet from the stage to the main floor. Much of the abuse glosses over the issue at hand and focusses instead on the indisputable fact that I am a freedom-hating socialist who would gladly see the American flag used to mop up the blood of terrorist martyrs. (Weirdly this is an accusation that I’ve heard far more frequently since joining TechCrunch than when I worked at the Manchester Socialist Guardian of Kabul.)
So again, then, let me clarify that I love America. If there were a baseball game between the Terrorists and America, I would be as crestfallen as the next man were the Terrorists to win. Ok? Are we cool, America? Good. Now hopefully I can safely and rationally talk about the differences between the British and American systems of libel law. In particular the fact that, whatever Michael Arrington might say, Yours might not be better than Ours.
More than enough has been written about Techcrunch’s – and Arrington’s – run in with UK defamation law, but I’ll sum it up in a nut for newbies. Back in July a former TechCrunch UK editor called Sam Sethi sued TechCrunch, and Arrington, over a Crunchnotes post titled ‘The Fact And Fiction Of Sam Sethi‘. In the post, Arrington recounted the sorry tale of Sam’s departure from TechCrunch and subsequent founding of a rival blog network called BlogNation. It’s a story of lies, money, spectacular mismanagement and ultimately abysmal failure – a story eerily close to my own, but without the scorned women and prison cells.
But whereas my story ended with pseudo redemption, and an – ahem – bestselling book, Sam’s ended with denial, rage and him bringing a ridiculous libel suit – brought in the English courts – against TechCrunch. Advised by lawyers that it would cost upwards of half a million pounds ($750,000) to defend the case in the UK, Arrington and Techcrunch declined to participate, leading – ridiculously – to a default judgment in Sethi’s favour.
You can understand then, why, Michael might have issue with the libel system in the country of my birth. And it gets worse: shortly after the judgment, documents came to light which showed that Sethi should never have been running BlogNation in the first place. Following the collapse of a previous business, he had been barred from being a director in England and Wales but due to an administrative fuck-up, this ban hadn’t been entered onto the statutory database. The situation has now been remedied and yet, despite the ban and the fact that Sam has apologised to Arrington and admitted fault, the judgment stands, effectively preventing Michael from visiting the UK.
And yet, and yet…
Reading Arrington’s post on the subject – entitled ‘UK Libel Law Is Out Of Control. We Know From Experience‘ – I can’t quite bring myself to entirely agree with him. Not about the Sethi stuff – Sam lied repeatedly to me and everyone else about being struck off as a director, and so deserves every bad word Michael says about him – but rather with the wider argument that libel law in the UK is in complete disarray because it allowed a UK litigant to sue an American citizen and website over something published online from the US.
Libel tourism gone mad! Wither freedom of speech?!
Hmmmm.
Like most legal issues, it’s actually a bit more complicated than that. Sethi is a British citizen who was – in his deluded mind at least – libeled by a website published in the US, but available to read – obviously – in the UK. For that reason there is, prima facie, absolutely nothing wrong with his bringing his ridiculous and pointless action in the UK courts.
After all, thanks to the Internet, he was defamed (in his mind), on British soil where he has a (I’m trying here to channel my laughter through my keyboard as I write these words) reputation to defend. Libel tourism – where a foreign litigant can sue a foreign publication on British soil because one copy of the publications was sold there – is evil, but that’s not what’s happened here.
This is an unpopular point of view, even amongst my own countrymen, but I actually quite like the harshness of British libel law. For a start it puts the burden of proof on the person making the libelous statement. If you accuse me of being a bad guy then it’s up to you to prove it’s true. If you can’t, you lose. And the penalties for losing are harsh: really harsh, which is how it probably should be. Unlike me, most Brits care about their reputation and standing in the community, and it’s hard to put a value on its loss.
Really, when it comes to freedom of speech, it’s America that has the more ridiculous system. Thanks to the First Amendment and a presumption in the US that public figures are fair game, I am free to make up almost any bullshit I like about an American in the public eye without him being able to sue. “Michael Arrington fucks swans!” See, there you go. It’s actually kinda fun! And thanks to the Internet, Arrington’s fictitious swan-molesting ways will soon be known to the world. Hell, if TechCrunch is a credible source, they might even make it to Wikipedia. God Bless America.
Really the Sethi vs Techcrunch case has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with how ridiculously cheap and easy it is for a delusional litigant to bring a nuisance lawsuit in the UK against a journalist who is telling the truth. A journalist who then has to spend a small fortune defending the action. If the defendant is from outside the UK then their only real choice in these circumstances is to decline to participate, leading to a criminally unfair judgment against them. If they’re from the UK, their best hope is to settle and hope to keep their house. Either way, the delusional litigant wins, and the truth loses.
Again, though, we’d struggle to look to America and find a better system. It was you people, after all, who gave the world the idea of no-win-no-fee lawyers: bloodsucking ambulance chasers who will gladly help me sue McDonalds for making their coffee with boiling water, rendering it unsafe for me to pour over my baby’s head. In most cases outside of libel, defending a nuisance lawsuit in the US is just as expensive, and just as pointless as it is in the UK. If our system is a mess then so is yours.
Also, it’s all too easy for Americans to criticise our system without suggesting a better one. It’s like those people who stand on street corners yelling “stop the war” or “free healthcare for all” or “swans don’t put out” without demonstrating how they would solve the problem if they were in charge. Those who suggest that Britain would be better off with a US First Amendment style system are just plain wrong. Particularly in the Internet age, lies can get halfway around the world before the truth has found a decent WiFi connection. For that reason we need a system whereby liars are scared shitless from posting untruths in the UK, lest they find themselves in front of a bewigged judge capable of handing down an almost unlimited fine. It’s the only language these people understand.
So what is the solution to improving the UK libel system? As always, I have the answers…
First, we needs an immediate ban on no win no fee lawyers in all but means-tested personal injury claims. If a litigant really thinks they have a claim against a publication – foreign or domestic – then they need to put their money where their reputations is. If they can’t do that then you might ask what value they put on their reputation in the first place.
Second, it’s ridiculous that litigants can sue individual journalists when their work appears in professionally edited publications. In Arrington’s post, he referred to the case of Simon Singh, a British journalist who was sued personally by the British Chiropractic Association for an article he wrote in the Guardian. The BCA chose to sue Singh personally rather than the Guardian, thus exposing the reporter to personal ruin no matter whether he successfully defends the action or not. Only a mentally retarded chimp would think that’s fair.
Third, libel tourism could be wiped out at a stroke if there was a requirement for litigants bringing action under English law to actually be British citizens. This wouldn’t have helped in Sethi vs Arrington, but it would certainly deal with the vast majority of outrageous abuses of jurisdiction.
But by far the most important change that needs to be made to English libel law is to scrap the so-called ‘multiple publication rule‘. This is the decision, made by the English courts in 1849, that every time a publisher makes a new copy of a libelous article, they are considered to have republished – and repeated – the libel. Which is important because English law imposes a statutory limitation of one year after publication for someone to bring a defamation action.
With the advent of the Internet, the multiple publication rule has caused havoc. In the eyes of the law, every time a user accesses a copy of an article published online, the act of the publisher’s web server delivering it is considered to be a republication. In other words, as long as something remains in an online archive, it is constantly being republished and there is no time restriction on someone suing over it.
This is how Sethi was able to dither for well over a year after Arrington’s ‘Fact and Fiction’ post was first published before taking action, and it’s why the UK remains such an attractive place to bring a libel suit. Without the multiple publication rule, his suit against TechCrunch would have come too late, and been thrown out before it even started.
The good news is that the English justice system is already – forgive the pun – on the case. Earlier this month, the Ministry of Justice began a consultation over scrapping the multiple publication rule. In its place they are considering a single publication rule – where the clock begins ticking when the libel is first published, and stops either one or three years (they haven’t decide yet) later. After that, publishers who keep articles archived electronically would have what’s called a ‘qualified privilege’ defence where they couldn’t be sued for leaving what they believe to be accurate statements online after that time.
If the consultation results in a change of law then it won’t solve the problem entirely – the UK still needs to get rid of no-win, no-fee lawyers and to clamp down on no-British litigants and the suing of individual journalists – but it would be a major leap forward. One which would have stopped Sethi in its tracks and move the British libel system closer to being The Best In The World.
And this, America, is where you come in. If like Arrington, you think the English system is screwed, I urge you to get involved in repairing it. The Ministry of Justice has published a list of questions that it wants your answers on here. Go answer them; pretend you’re British if you have to.
I’ve already sent in my answers and I’m going to do my best to convince Arrington to do the same when he gets back from vacation in Hawaii.
Or at least he claims he’s on vacation. Do they have swans in Hawaii?
Just saying.
Hi, where can i buy your book?
Kidding!
But i love your writing style.
Well played sir.
You heard it here first, “Paul Carr likes … young … boys.”
Paul,
Here’s a baseball stat for you – “0 for 10″.
As in how many of your posts I’ve actually been able to finish reading (0) versus how many I’ve tried to read (10).
Shorten it up man!
Get an attention span!
… His posts are hilarious, how could you not finish any of them?
yet another ~yawnz~ post..Paul, believe me, you can be a very good mainstream blogger..Ask Mike to get you off this ‘controversy writer’ thing…
“shorten it up man”
How about ‘un-boring’ it up. Without a doubt, the worst writer ever. Carr, why do you think so highly of yourself? And why are you such a bitch? You’ve got more whine than a Gary V review. Eternal fail.
What’s funny is that Carr’s articles are the only things I fully read on TechCrunch, most of the other stuff is only good for a quick browse.
Who’s the injun who made the dumb comment?
Ithink so this is very baset dizi. I like surized very flow back. this responsed two ideas. because is it hard.
You make an interesting point regarding “if you make the statement, you’d have to be able to defend yourself”. I respectfully disagree, since I believe too much in freedom of speech and would find it horrible to be prevented from saying anything, true or not, online or in print. That said, I see your point (and I know you are a huge fan of full identity disclosure online, and against anonymous commenters, so I see why you would also be against libel online, more so if so many anons are allowed to spew it).
In the US system, there are libel laws, and while IANAL, I do see how it is fair for someone to be able to say whatever they feel, and if the other party feels that it is untrue, they can sue for libel. However, it falls on the aggravated party’s the need to prove WHY it is libel. Your swan example is interesting, because you make it hard for me to argue. I could simply say that it would be ridiculous for Mike to sue you for saying he has an affection for swan, but I have to admit that it is a good example of something that could be widely written, incorrectly, about someone in wikipedia and it would be hard for them to defend themselves. I mean, how do you prove you do not like fucking swan?
So, I do not know what my point is, other than “this is a tough subject.” I believe in freedom of speech, I also believe people should not libel others, and it should be their burden of proof to show that what was said was not true (if they decide to sue), but I have to admit it is unfair to be so defenseless when Paul decides to write that “Hector likes to put gerbils up his rectum.”
I’m looking forward to reading both points of view in these comments.
I forgot to mention: I live in Puerto Rico, which, being a territory of the US which was taken from Spain, we have a mix of the Common and Civil Law systems (UK and US’s systems, respectively). I have to research a little into what would be the case with libel locally.
Also, before Mike reprimands you for plugging your book again – do you know where I can get it other than on Kindle? Amazon does not allow Kindle purchases in Puerto Rico, even though they ship everything else.
I had the same question a few days ago and Paul Carr pointed me to Waterstones.com – they do deliver overseas
That’s great! Thank you, I will check it out, hopefully they will ship here.
Weird: 75 days until publication (http://www.wate....do?sku=5982669)
If I read this right, and I cannot have, then our British OP just argued that Briton’s method of dealing with Libel was great because it proceeded with the MO guilty until proven innocent.
Remind me not to say anything true about a Biritsh person, because I could End up in lawsuit having to defend my opinions about the lack of merits in Cricket.
This is exactly the problem with the British system. To quote Paul, “it puts the burden of proof on the person making the libelous statement.” But what if it’s NOT a libelous statement? What if it’s true, but I still get sued? Now I have to pay thousands of pounds to defend a true statement. And that is, to quote the Brits, bollocks.
james is 100% right…but only because i agree with him and subscribe to his way of thinking.
What happened to the UK judgment in favor of Sethi? Have TechCrunch and Arrington paid up the damages awarded in the default judgment against them? Or, is it that Arrington has avoided to visit UK in order to not to pay the damages, as mentioned in this post?
It appears ridiculous that lawyers advised TechCrunch to not to defend the defamation suit in UK on the ground that it may cost US$ 750,000 to defend it!!! Who was this lawyer?
Actually, the best solution would be to fix the substance of the libel laws so that these litigants wouldn’t have a chance of winning (as is the case in the US with our strong 1st Amendment protection).
Then, with the UK loser pays both sides fees system nobody would be willing to bring frivolous suits in the UK.
Much better an idea than any of your others. I don’t buy the argument that you need to scare people into not saying lies. The best answer to bad, stupid, speech is more speech, not less (and certainly not lawsuits).
I have to agree, why not give judges the discretion to make the litigant pay all the bills if the case is frivolous.
Of course that won’t always work because when you’re talking this amount of money most people would end up declaring bankruptcy!
The points made in the post make perfect sense though. Non UK litigants should be stopped. Multiple publication rules should be stopped.
Why can’t we have a system where both parties have a burden of proof. You have to prove what you say is true and vice versa. Then a judge (in the UK) or jury will make the decision. That would also help identify frivolous cases more easily (i.e. the litigating party would have no case).
well, we can not have both parties having the burden of proof, because, and this is important, who needs to prove things is short of who needs to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. as it were, we tend to be in doubt often and if you say then there is no damage, then it means the burden of proof was on the litigant, and if you say pay up when in doubt, then the burden was on the defendant.
So I would really require defendant to provide reasonable suspicion that what he claims is true to be freed, and require the litigant to prove the damages that the statements have caused, shrink bills, lost business etc, but proving that the statements were the main cause of the lost business and shrink bills. And then cover those. Plus the legal fees for all involved, up to some reasonable cutoff for legal fees, we do not want to get lawyers too excited about the lawsuit opportunities.
You are totally right that the US system is overly litigious and that nuisance lawsuits are a blight.
You are wacky for thinking that the burden of proof for libel should be on the defendant.
The name George Galloway should end the argument immediately.
And guilty until proven innocent is kinda big in the US.
Rumors are bad, but fear of saying things just cuz you don’t think you could prove them in court is orders of magnitude worse. One needn’t be all that creative to see the horrors that would be produced in any case based on an event that wasn’t recorded
what does WITN stand for?… these acronyms are getting presumptuous
Why Is This News?
JFC Paul. really? swans? yes, i was told to “find the internet and read this post fast” by a friend. I wish I hadn’t.
ok, back to the beach.
I am sure he means BACK TO THE BAR!
Michael, I swear to you. I think Paul Carr was dropped on the head as a child. That said… he’s a damn funny writer. Good call on the hire.
And please…. leave the swans alone…. k?
The Carr hire at TechCrunch has felt similar to the Seanbaby hire at Cracked.
Did I already comment that once? Maybe I did, I don’t remember… anyway I’ve been thinking it.
omg. i saw that when paul had his first tc post and sean baby had basically posted the same manifesto although darker on cracked about the wow players and the people who comment online. both were pretty spectacular. i think paul is the angel cousin of seanbaby’s evil conscious. i’m so glad they were both rehired. hilarious, and excellent writting. i actually learn english from them both.
Paul is an oustanding writer; you’re very lucky to have him
i don’t think there are swans on the beach mike, you ‘re wasting your time. go to a lake
New section to Arringtons wikipedia entry:
-Swan Fornication Controversy-
In 2009 evidence surfaced that Michael was molesting swans. This evidence was in the form of an article by Paul Carr in which Carr, a well known swan, claimed to have first hand knowledge of the alleged fornication. Legal action against Arrington was not taken due to the recent changes in British tort law.
Good read.
But please don’t pull baseball into your set-ups anymore. Roseanne Barr’s national anthem version was more pleasant than hearing you drag baseball and hot dogs through that intro.
lol. it wasn’t that bad. the rest of it was worthwhole though because he brings up good points about stupid old laws and the accepted norms on both sides of the pond. i don’t think i agree with the whole the burden of proof should be on the defendant, and as someone already pointed out, guilty until proven innocent is the norm here.
The club section is were you tend to have more beers then the inning count! I am sure you have no clue of what the score is if you spent your time writing this “delicious” yet meaningless post.
Again, I could not read the entire post as it truly was BORING once again. Someday, Oh I hope some day, you will use your fine writing skills on a topic of interest to the masses…. at least more then one copy…. wait, on the internet, the copy amount is possible endless… is it not?
I am sure Arrington has many LIBEL suits he wears!
Paul:
Hey! Nice seeing you at Techcrunch50.
Oh, BTW. You’re wrong about American libel law.
You can’t write just anything about a public figure and be free of charges of libel
There are additional (and reasonable) additional burdens of proof for a case of libel against a public official. You can find these in the WIkipedia entry on “actual malice”.
http://en.wikip...i/Actual_malice
So, while I think you are a fine resident alien that indeed is a tribute to the visa system, I think you may want to stick with the writing rather than the lawyering while visiting our fair shores. Mate.
-CST
Baseball cant be as exciting as cricket if you can idly put together that many words while watching a game.
Depends on your attention span. A single cricket match can litterally last *days*.
But then if you know the game well, you don’t have to watch every single minute of it – not that watching your favourite sport all day is bad or unenjoyable..
It isn’t. Astonishingly.
Another controversial article from Paul Carr with another plug for his book – this passes as journalism? Gimme a break.
You do realise this type of comment is what he’s aiming for right? By expressing your disagreement, your actually giving him reason to continue these articles.
Not that I disagree with what he’s saying.
i was beginning to miss his posts where he did plug his book. i think he should plug it all the time and give us no reprive. good that i read the comments because i just found out that i can’t purchase it normally, but i can use the website that another commenter posted. i’m sure the book will be worthwhile. imagine someone who’s more of a screwup than you are already. that’s one reason to get the book. another will be to get it because it is beyond very well written. sometimes he uses these large english words that simply confounds some americans. that’s enough in my book to be a fan of paul carr-the angle cousin of seanbaby.
stopped reading when I learned you were at Giants game. get it together. what is this some type of garlic fries fed rant?
how does one have a garilic fired fed rant about libel law? is this piece an example?
I’m trying to find even the slightest relevance to technology in this long, boring, self-absorbed, diarrhea-like spattering of words. Please find new subject matter — ideally technology-related, but at least something that does not revolve around you and the inane details of your personal life and your groan-inducing attempts to sell us your books like some sad infomercial huckster.
Your point is?
From careful analysis, I think it’s that he doesn’t like Paul’s article.
lol. it doesn’t deal with tech at all? did you read it. i saw at&fail mentioned and two people involved in the tech blog world…it’s pulling at straws but it’s a small bit tech related.
anyways, okay so he didn’t write about google, at&t, twitter, apple, i anything, yahoo, facebook, etc…what would you rather he wrote about? pick your poison and maybe send him some hate mail (snicker. love how he linked to his old post about the flag (i agree with you by the way paul. @jason is a control freak, kinda like how @arrington is a germapobe/anti-handshakes) to keep the fervor alive).
Seems to me this is about a very important tech discussion: local laws applicable on the international moloch that is the internet. The local libel laws in the UK are not adapted to the existence of the internet and this is a plea by Paul to take the net into consideration during the reform of libel law.
Are our laws compatible with this day and age?
nice to see you tie it all in so nicely and coherently (unlike me), and it’s interesting that paul posted this the other day because i had just been listening to the radio on a program that observes the internet tech world, where they were talking about google and how human memory and being human hasn’t been replicated in all these technological innovations. like there’s still a large margin of error wher ethe computer/data can never be human or the human brain. they were talking mostly in terms of how everything is stored online in data packets and how no matter how much humans try we can never have that precision like the computer, so in the ong run maybe someone somewhere (google) will have so much information about all of us (even though recently i think google only agreed to keep information stored for 9 months (b.s.)) to use against us whereas we won’t have any information/less information about our own pasts. like we accept so easily all these terms of services without giving greater thought to how much of humanity we turn over. it’s all interesting. sounds a bit too far fetched for me and conspiracey theory like but i don’t think what was presented in that radio program was that far off. there was an example of a man who was denied entry into the US because the border officer used google to find a research paper the man had written 40 years ago about drugs…he’s a professor and a therapist. i mean as funny and as unfortunate as that was, i was like f you guy, because he should know that data-computers-google makes no excuse for taking prisoners of the footprints people leave online. if you’re dumb enough to ge screwed or be screwed over (all the people who have had to go from annoymous to *insert name here, because google or some other ocmpany turned over your personal information), then i don’t give a shit. it’s frightening but we are making our own beds.
I suppose that given two choices:
1) Too easy to say whatever you want about someone
or
2) Too easy to sue someone for libel and win
… I’d prefer #1 for a clear reason. The public is beginning to understand more and more that what is published on the internet from non-accredited news sources is not necessary true or factual.
A child born today that lives for 80 years is likely to have a massive digital chronicle. High school kids that call them sluts, kids that rate their teachers, blog comments like this one, etc., all leave some kind of a trail. We are transitioning from believing everything we read to questioning and challenging everything we read. It raises the question of whether something untruthful states on a web site can actually hurt someone. I believe the impact is decreasing with time.
Therefore, I’m of the “Lawsuits and judgments break my bank account but words should never hurt me” mentality.
But really? Swans? LOL!
Well said Roman!
Really? “Professionally edited publications” deserve different treatment under the law? As defined by whom and how? And internationally?
I think we need to create one of those Number 10 Petitions to bring light to the matter. Apparently, you only need 500 signatures or more to be considered “serious” and get an official response.
As an Englishman, I’ll readily admit this country (well more like the idiots in charge…) can do a crap job sometimes, but this default judgment bs and ridiculous libel nonsense just makes me flat out ashamed.
Maybe a better idea would be to get rid of all the lawyers… permanently, as you can be certain once this scam is over and done with, they’ll all be moving onto the next one.
It was you people, after all, who gave the world the idea of no-win-no-fee lawyers: bloodsucking ambulance chasers who will gladly help me sue McDonalds for making their coffee with boiling water, rendering it unsafe for me to pour over my baby’s head.
You lost me right here, as you clearly know nothing of this case. Read this so you’ll avoid making such ignorant statements in the future.
I read that and I still agree with Paul. Of course, McDonalds could make their coffee safer but I still have a (not unreasonable) expectation that the coffee I buy may be somewhere near boiling point and to treat it with the care required. If someone puts a flimsy cup filled with boiling water between their thighs, is it really McDonalds fault if they spill it on themselves? Should the makers of knives be held responsible if someone cuts themselves claiming they didn’t know it was sharp? What happened to personal responsibility?
Did you ever get the baseball cap?
We are still smarting over British cheerleading and intervention in our Presidential election. You had no right to get involved the way you did, and look at the load of garbage you’ve given us to clean up for the next 4 years.
I am starting a new campaign of my own, since I’m an American expat living in Britain. The theme song is Billy Ocean’s “Carribean Queen”. Can you guess my goal?
Paul, could you please explain some Britain debt collecting laws also, because I fail to understand why you wrote “effectively preventing Michael from visiting the UK.” By the judgement AFAIK Michael/TC now owns some money to SS. Ok, here, in another EU country, this means ZERO chance to get detained, arrested, visited by the police, etc. ZERO. What can and will happen is when you not pay then the collectors arrest your bank accounts and sell your properties. Neither of this can happen to Michael. So – is it different in the UK? What have I missed?
You are so naive Paul Carr. This libel laws in UK are made to disadvantage people from outside of UK – like Michal Arrington, and not to “scare libel writers from UK”. Example: Andrew Orlowski wrote libel about me and about some Americans and he got away from it. I know more of such cases. So don’t tell me that British system is any good, it is bad.
By the way, Paul Carr: what do you think about Royal Family and the queen? Are they spongers or a valuable institution for the good of UK?
Think you might have missed the point here Comic. Paul isn’t defending UK libel laws – he is not saying the UK system is good, he is saying it is bad and that it needs serious changes.
What he IS saying is that in changing it, the example should not be taken from the US, who like the UK, don’t have a great system either.
And re the Royals: who cares? Whether you’re being prosecuted by the Crown or the Federal Government, it’s still “the system” that’s screwing you!!
you definately read the article and have a mind that can reason crap from shit and make it into concise thoughts.
I’d like to hear Paul’s views on London buses, beefeaters, the beatles and British food too. Let’s get it all out of the way.
lol. moi aussi. wonder if he would faul on the wrong side of the nationalistic line with his answers. don’t fall for this trick paul (london buses suck) and don’t fall for comic bloggers question about the queen.
Oh yeah, it’s all relevant!!
“a requirement for litigants bringing action under English law to actually be British citizens”
You didn’t think before writing this, did you?
A requirement that a litigant be resident in a jurisdiction where English law applies, might be reasonable. A citizenship requirement is not.
he’s at a crap baseball game. i think he already prefaced his entire piece with a big and valid excuse. he’s british. he doesn’t get baseball cause it’s not football or cricket or polo (is polo even a sport?), and he’s scared (he should be comended for even admitting that. i think the whole arrington f’d swans is a cover up to recover his masculinity). if you believe any of that you have to excuse his thinking. all things considering how he managed to type out this whole thing and have it all mostly make sense, at a game, is beyond me. the dude is definately resourceful.
>understand why my column this week reads like it’s been written by a man distracted by the fear of at any minute being beaned by a baseball,
LOL. I have this same fear too. The odds are infitesimal a ball will come flying in my direction, but whatever I’m doing – eating, looking at the Jumbotron, I have to constantly look back at the batter, and watch the ball for fear its going to be coming square in my direction.
I’m sure Paul will deal with the nuances of having royalty and a PM rather than a President is often pretty beneficial in a future post, but its good to see the other side to Arrington’s rants come from within TC.
The UK libel laws are archaic and in need of an overhaul, and Paul’s ideas surprisingly don’t sound like those of a crazy person.
I have some issues with it though. Being a British citizen is a bit too harsh as a requirement, as those long term residents would not have the defence to libel in the courts which could be a major issue. Maybe residents for over 3 years or similar instead?
I think getting rid of the no win no fee lawyers (with the exception Pauk mention’s) would be the biggest improvement, not just in libel but we imported it from the US and it has played havoc with what was previously a decent system.
Oh and just to poke the bear a little – freedom of speech is not absolute anywhere and for good reason, and definitely not in the US (or the UK). Will people stop trying to claim it is please. http://is.gd/3IAav
I agree, the British citizenship requirement wouldn’t make sense, nor would being a resident be. Someone could write something about me in a certain country, which may not directly harm me at the current time, but may affect future business I have in that country. It is my right, or even my obligation, to fight these allegations. And of course I would look for my best chances to win, just like patent lawsuits tend to take part in a certain district of Texas.
Transferring the burden to deliver proof of libel to the litigant would make it the system much fairer. If I need to proof your allegations are not true (which can be hard) and you can show proof otherwise, I’m screwed.
Also, I agree with you on freedom of speech not being absolute. Every freedom comes with obligations and should be used with great care.
“First, we needs an immediate ban on no win no fee lawyers in all but means-tested personal injury claims.”
If you get rid of this, poor people will not be able to file lawsuits! Duh…
Do you understand what ‘means-tested’ means?
Points of dissension:
1. Writing posts about other peoples’ posts (first Sarah’s Brazil thing, then Mike’s libel thing) suggest you have no ideas of your own. Rejoinders are not articles. Come up with something original.
2. This has nothing to do with tech. This is Techcrunch, not Silicon Valley Law Review.
3. ‘My country is better than your country’ type arguments should be left in the playground. Grow up.
4. I’m neither British nor American (though I live in London), and I far prefer the US system, because the benefits of free speech outweigh the costs of abusing it (a calculation you evidently haven;t made).
5. Your focus on the protection of journalists (in your suggestions for improvement) is biased and tendentious. ALLL citizens should be protected from the UK’s silly libel laws. Journos should not have more protections than anyone else.
6. The real reforms needed to the UK system are first that judges should be empowered to dismiss nuisance suits out of hand. Many abuse the system because poor defendants are scared of the cost in time and money of defending themselves- even if they eventually win.
7. Second, Litigants should have to bear defendants’ costs and pay compensation if they lose.
8. Thirdly, any case involving the expression of an opinion should be dismissed out of hand. If I think you’re a jerk, live with it.
9. Last but certainly not least, the presumption of guilt should be reversed. It belongs in Salem with trials, not modern democracies. The reason is, society should make the a priori assumption that the universal right to free speech is of greater weight and importance than the individual’s sensitivity about his reputation.
1. Fail. This is original and its a big issue. The only reason other blog posts are referred to is to key techcrunch readers into why this is relevant.
2. This has nothing to do with tech? WTF? I bet you have a Facebook and update it everyday, or a twitter, or even a blog. If you do then there is a possibility that the law of Libel or Defamation applies. The sharing of information in any social media/networking sense cuts clean across these issues. I hope, for gods sake that your not working for a social networking “tech” company.
3. The comparison again is there to highlight the differences in approach to similar issues. In fact if you read the post you would note that he lampoons both systems.
4. That sort of calculation you make is silly. Reputations are important. Lets say that one of Techcrunch’s sponsors are also supporters/benefactors of Swan charities and Paul’s revelation about Arrington causes them to withdraw their support. Your free speech has caused Mike damage – so it wasn’t very free at all. In your free speech biased world Mike would have no recourse regardless of whether your revelation was true or false, regardless of what impact it has (or is having on his business). Get your mind right.
5. Silly point. Of course journos and bloggers matter more than you and your 100 friends on facebook or 2 followers on twitter. A point Paul missed was the “damage” one. The law of libel and defamation scale depending on the size of the audience.
6. Clearly, you don’t understand what the role of a Judge is. They don’t sit in court assessing claims for their nuisance value. Oh and a brief look through Eng and Wales Civil Rules reveal that Judges can remove ‘vexatious’ claims. In respect of your second point concerning the cost of litigation – Arrington’s $750K quote seems ridiculously high – in reality litigation costs are far lower and rather ironically, if you were really struggling to pay you could go the conditional fee agreement route (I cringed because I didn’t want to write no win no fee).
7. In England… the loser pays.
8. I’ve dealt with this above.
9. Presumption of guilt should be reversed? I thought you were American. lol
A few years a go while I was at school I posted a picture of a class mate on the Internet that basically said he was gay with my old Headteacher. This really highlighted for me the flaws of the British libel system; fortunately nothing too serious came out of it and after a warning from the police the boy decided not to prosecute. Still, I’ve learned my lesson!
There are enough systems to let “poor people” file lawsuits. Even where no-win no-fee lawyers are banned.
I got $10 for whoever can “find” the best photo of Mike fucking a swan.
$15 if it is Lynn Swann.
Great article thanks for the info!
Spammer, ban this lowlife’s IP addy.
A
People bring libel suits and win in the US–it just has to be actually ….libelous, rather than….true.
More evidence of British libel law awesomeness:
http://www.amaz.../dp/0060593776/
in which a holocaust denier is able to sue a (Jewish) American academic.
One of the reasons America shed the load of English rule was because of dumb-ass English law! All-in-all everyone in the world should grow a thicker skin. Unfortunately it seems like its much more popular to behave like a two year old and whine every time someone doesn’t agree with you or like you. Grow up!
And how are you with your second book?
read his tweets.
You are a fan of censorship? This is the only thing I can conclude from reading this tripe. Either that or you are trolling the readers of TechCrunch.
You try to justify the case involving Sethi by saying that he was a British citizen using the British system. While this is true it is completely irrelevant, there have been numerous cases where foreign citizens (foreign to Britain) have sued other foreign citizens for libel in cases that had nothing to do with Britain or British citizens.
Roman Polanski got a 50,000 pound judgment from a UK court for defamation against Vanity Fair despite the fact that Polanski is a French citizen and Vanity Fair is an American magazine. Not to mention that Polanski couldn’t even show up in court considering he was afraid of being extradited to the US by the UK for raping a 13 year old.
In what world is deciding a libel case against a magazine for printing something that was probably true about a fugitive rapist justice?
i think he still says that the american system is flawed just like the uk system and i don’t think he agrees with libel tourrism.
the polanski dude got arrested in switzerland today. yay laws. apparently the french (not surprised) are going to try and save his ass. i don’t know why since the dude is literally a fucker, a smart fuck, but he still deserves what he gets. stop being stupid france.
paul,
following up on your request for suggestions on how to fix the problem rather than just to throw stones at others’ legal systems:
to help fix UK libel law, have all actions go before arbitration rather than the courts with no barristers or solicitors, only litigants, allowed to present their case to the arbitrator, for the arbitrator to determine if the published statements are both materially untrue and materially prejudicial, and if so at that point to proceed to the court system.
to help fix US class action suits with contingency counsel, remove all punitive damage awards from that amounts distributable to the plaintiff and their counsel and have those moneys instead paid to a public trust and used for things of public good, such as clean-up of environmental damage, restoration after natural disasters, etc.
This is a right mess. Although, if either Mr. Arrington or Mr. Sethi were better known for being nicer fellows, this probably wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Instead, you had two “strong personalities” at play; which greatly increased the chances of a crap result. No offence, Mr. Arrignton, you’ve done wonders with your site and for Silicon Valley. Let’s be clear about that.
TechCrunch commenters are hilarious. And insane.
Better take your meds, then.
hahaha. my crazy says hello to your crazy. but the point paul brings up is a good one. i think this is better than arrington’s post about this even. i don’t know how one would begin to reform the system but i think the uk is on the right path. i mean that late 18th century law needs to be scraped or amended to reflect the current times and technology. when i was reading that part i was like how stupid can this be, and the funny thing is that the lawyers and even the judges have no options because that is the law, so they have to act and rule within the laws constrictions. internet storage can be the downfall of anonymity and not taking responsibility for oneself.
Paul, you can say what you like as far as I’m concerned, as long as you SPELL IT CORRECTLY! There are only two S’s in “focused”!
“focuses”!
Irony?
PC, how many stories don’t get published in the UK because of its libel laws? …and are you City or Utd?
Paul, I agree with you that the American Justice system is out of control. Must admit that I didn’t read the post about the libel law until earlier.
I must say that I’ve agreed with all the points you’ve made so far, even the flag comment that everyone seems to hate. I know that you don’t care about all the comments, but keep up the good work, you’ve almost worked me up enough to buy your book.
Rule Britannia, lar de dar de darrrr! – Thanks Paul you cheered me up – you mean you are allowed to say the F word in public in the States – as well as mention ’swam humping’ without getting arrested ? *Zara unpacks blow up boat and sets sail for New York* I want free speech too.
Spat my morning coffee
Love your work. Might have to buy the Kindle version of your book (I’m in Oz).
lol @ pretend you’re british to answer the questions. good points rasied and write up paul. hope you survived you moment of americana and despite the fact that you had one eye on the ball (take this any way you want it) you managed to type out a pretty coherent post. thanks.
tl;dr
…and much of what I put online would probably get me thrown in jail in Iran, Venezuela, China, Cuba, and other similar dictatorships. Does that mean, since I broke those country’s laws publishing that “illegal” content here in the US, but available in those countries, I should be arrested here and extradited to stand trial?
Pointless comment here but since when does anyone from the UK refer to ourselves as Brits? Apart from that great post, always get me laughing!
Since when don’t we?
Well we don’t up’t north!
Must be you southern fairies…
Interesting discussion. However, I always like how the McDonalds’ coffee lawsuit is brought up. I’m sorry, the plantif had 3rd degree burns. Not an “ouch, that hurts” type of burn, not a 1st degree burn, not even a 2nd degree burn, but a 3rd degree burns top her groin that required skin grafts and a seven day hospital stay. I don’t think that is frivilous… In the case of the McDonalds’ suit I guess if you say it on the internet enough times, it must be true… I wish people checked their facts: http://www.lawa....com/q298-2.htm
Again a post where Arrington is part of it. This one really overcame all possibilities. I think he hired you to write his personal biography in posts. Get a grip Paul.