The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Rogerandout]

We can have as many legal 'experts' as we like on here and none of it counts for anything, only that of the judge is important.

And we can have any number of armchair detectives, and all that matters is the view of respective judicial systems.

[Luz]

Of course Luz.  However, as you will aware - that is not the whole of article 37.  It goes on to say:

3. Infractions committed in the exercise of these rights are subject to the general principles of the criminal law or the law governing administrative offences, and the competence to consider them shall pertain to the courts of law or an independent administrative entity respectively, as laid down by law.

4. Every natural and legal person shall be equally and effectively ensured the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.

Which is the problem for Amaral.

Which was given to the McCann on their first Trials. The first they won, as you must know, but in the end the Supreme Curt reaffirmed the Right to Freedom of Expression.

[Rogerandout]

Which was given to the McCann on their first Trials. The first they won, as you must know, but in the end the Supreme Curt reaffirmed the Right to Freedom of Expression.

They retain that right - it cannot be removed. The first trial was about prior restraint, this trial is about personal damage.

[Luz]

Which was given to the McCann on their first Trials. The first they won, as you must know, but in the end the Supreme Curt reaffirmed the Right to Freedom of Expression.

That is what I have been saying all along. The question in this trial is not if it is defamatory or not but if it has caused damages!

[Luz]

Sometimes I feel I must be very clumsy with the english language, but in general I feel that most people prefer to ignore what I say or to trample over what I write.

[Luz]

They retain that right - it cannot be removed. The first trial was about prior restraint, this trial is about personal damage.

Congratulations, you finally understood it!

If for nothing else I'm happy for contributing for this understanding. No defamation on trial, just compensation, right??????

[Rogerandout]

Congratulations, you finally understood it!

If for nothing else I'm happy for contributing for this understanding. No defamation on trial, just compensation, right??????

Compensation for defamation

[Rogerandout]

Sometimes I feel I must be very clumsy with the english language, but in general I feel that most people prefer to ignore what I say or to trample over what I write.

That is partly content and partly style.

[Jean-Pierre]

Sometimes I feel I must be very clumsy with the english language, but in general I feel that most people prefer to ignore what I say or to trample over what I write.

Not at all Luz.  Your command of English is very good.  The reason why perhaps your feel that way is because you seem to be incapable of appreciating that sometimes others hold views which are in opposition to your own.  The matter of the Article 37 is a case in point - whilst it is clear that Amaral is relying on his right to freedom of expression, the Portuguese constitution provides for a right not to be defamed by someone exercising his right to freedom of expression.

The right of freedom of expression is not unrestrained - and anyone who argues to the contrary betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.  Whether this through ignorance or malice I cannot tell. 

[Montclair]

Compensation for defamation

Santa paciência! Some people simply do not want to understand, do they?

[Rogerandout]

Santa paciência! Some people simply do not want to understand, do they?

Is there no defamation law in Portugal?

[AnneGuedes]

4. Every natural and legal person shall be equally and effectively ensured the right of reply and to make corrections, as well as the right to compensation for damages suffered.

Which is the problem for Amaral.

The right of reply and correct is crucial. And in fact it has been neglected.
Which is the problem for the McCanns.

[Rogerandout]

The right of reply and correct is crucial. And in fact it has been neglected.
Which is the problem for the McCanns.

So you believe it is a libel trial?

[icabodcrane]

Not at all Luz.  Your command of English is very good.  The reason why perhaps your feel that way is because you seem to be incapable of appreciating that sometimes others hold views which are in opposition to your own.  The matter of the Article 37 is a case in point - whilst it is clear that Amaral is relying on his right to freedom of expression, the Portuguese constitution provides for a right not to be defamed by someone exercising his right to freedom of expression.

The right of freedom of expression is not unrestrained - and anyone who argues to the contrary betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.  Whether this through ignorance or malice I cannot tell.

Luz raises an interesting point

We are lucky to have a member who has taken the time and trouble to attend every day of the trial.  The court reports we have been privileged to,  have made it clear that the trial has not addressed whether or not Amaral's book  defamed or libelled the McCanns   ...   not a single piece of evidence has been produced in that regard

The trial has focussed, exclusively,  on the  'damage'  Amaral's book caused 

How can this be accounted for,   other  than by the explanation given by Luz  ?

[Rogerandout]

Luz raises an interesting point

We are lucky to have a member who has taken the time and trouble to attend every day of the trial.  The court reports we have been privileged to,  have made it clear that the trial has not addressed whether or not Amaral's book  defamed or libelled the McCanns   ...   not a single piece of evidence has been produced in that regard

The trial has focussed, exclusively,  on the  'damage'  Amaral's book caused 

How can this be accounted for,   other  than by the explanation given by Luz  ?

Damage to reputation is defamation. Defamation may be libel.