Libel ....

[ferryman]

What is libel?

And what isn't it?

Discuss.

183

[slartibartfast]

It may help you understand where you go wrong.

[Alfie]

Is it libellous to suggest the McCanns are hiding something?

[G-Unit]

Is it libellous to suggest the McCanns are hiding something?

John Stalker wrote it and wasn't sued.

[ferryman]

Is it libellous to suggest the McCanns are hiding something?

It is, especially in the context that John Stalker wrote it, apart from that he added, in the same article, that he didn't believe, for one moment, that McCanns were guilty of anything nefarious in respect of Madeleine's disappearance.

That is an important point about libel.

Statements that are, in themselves true, can still be libellous if they impute a meaning that would otherwise not be present if they are quoted in full, rather than partially.

[Alfie]

John Stalker wrote it and wasn't sued.

So a comment cannot be described as libellous until the author has been sued, is that your contention?

[Alice Purjorick]

This might help 

http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
it might be out of date so look at this as well
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws.

"The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]"

[ferryman]

So a comment cannot be described as libellous until the author has been sued, is that your contention?

If that is, indeed, G-Unit's contention, then then the answer is 'no' (as I'm sure Alfie knows).

[ferryman]

You commit libel if you say that Colin Stagg stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel (even though that is true).

But not if you add that, at his trial, he was acquitted.

[faithlilly]

If that is, indeed, G-Unit's contention, then then the answer is 'no' (as I'm sure Alfie knows).

In the context of this case it's only libel if you are rich enough to sue.

[ferryman]

People on this board libel J....  .... when they talk about his use of low copy number in parallel with criticism of the technique voiced by the judge who presided over the trials of those accused of the Omagh bombings.

[Mr Gray]

John has referred to the FSS as feeding duff information to amaral...is that libellous

[slartibartfast]

You commit libel if you say that Colin Stagg stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel (even though that is true).

But not if you add that, at his trial, he was acquitted.

I see why you keep falling foul of the rules.

It would be libel if you told a prospective employer of Colin Stagg that he stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel, it is not libel if you stated it on a public forum.

[Mr Gray]

I see why you keep falling foul of the rules.

It would be libel if you told a prospective employer of Colin Stagg that he stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel, it is not libel if you stated it on a public forum.

neither would be libel as it is true

[slartibartfast]

neither would be libel as it is true

The first can be sued.