identity theft

[Mark McIntyre]

In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
free to apply common sense.

*ahem*. You err.

I /strongly/ suspect that the *instant* you make a public allegation, you
place yourself into a legal situation and must be prepared to apply the
same rules of evidence that a) you'd expect to be judged by yourself and b)
would be applied in a court of law . If this were not so, then the laws of
slander and libel would not exist...

 

[Walter Roberson]

:On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 01:20:05 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson

:>In a court of law. This is not a court of law; we have no authority
:>to put anybody in prison, and nobody has been accused of a crime.
:>Because of that, we're not bound by the same rules of evidence. We're
:>free to apply common sense.

:*ahem*. You err.

:I /strongly/ suspect that the *instant* you make a public allegation, you
lace yourself into a legal situation and must be prepared to apply the
:same rules of evidence that a) you'd expect to be judged by yourself and b)
:would be applied in a court of law . If this were not so, then the laws of
:slander and libel would not exist...

Slander and libel are most often civil charges rather than criminal
charges. There is an important distinction between the two WRT the
"rules of evidence". Civil suits only require "balance of probabilities",
and civil suits have more leeway to apply "common sense" than do
criminal charges.

The laws regarding slander and libel vary greatly from country to
country.

In the USA, it is an absolute defence to standard libel suits
if the remarks made were true, but there is a relatively new
law, "malicious libel" for which the truth of the remarks is irrelevant
if it can be shown that the remarks were made with "reckless disregard"
for the truth [think tabloid journalism].

In Canada, truth is not an absolute defence, but there is a long
list of defences having to do with public debate and reasonable
-belief- that the matter was true; the circumstances under which
truth is -not- a defence have to do with making remarks which go
inordinately "beyond what is reasonable under the circumstancs".

In the UK, truth isn't very much of a defence at all, as best
I can tell: the question is more whether it was "necessary" to publish
it at all: if the person's reputation was hurt by the publication then
they can often win even if every word of it was true. This, incidently,
is why the famous Usenet Libel cases were all run in the UK.


So... libel and slander are strange legal beasts, not really
comparable to anything else; effectively, the rules of evidence
are different for them than for other matters -- and in many countries,
"common sense" doesn't work very well when it comes to slander and libel.

 

[Keith Thompson]

*ahem*. You err.

I /strongly/ suspect that the *instant* you make a public allegation, you
place yourself into a legal situation and must be prepared to apply the
same rules of evidence that a) you'd expect to be judged by yourself and b)
would be applied in a court of law . If this were not so, then the laws of
slander and libel would not exist...

I have repeatedly acknowledged that it's possible that the person
posting as "(e-mail address removed)" really is named E. Robert
Tisdale, and really isn't the same person as E. Robert Tisdale of JPL.
Do you honestly think that's the most likely explanation?

I have also said, and I'll say again now, that the most likely
explanation is that someone, for whatever reason, attempted to deceive
us by posting with the name "E. Robert Tisdale". I'm not worried
about being sued for libel for stating this obvious conclusion, one
that any reasonable person would reach.

But if you're so worried about it, perhaps you should worry about me
suing you for accusing me of commiting libel.

This whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[Richard Tobin]

In the UK, truth isn't very much of a defence at all, as best
I can tell: the question is more whether it was "necessary" to publish
it at all: if the person's reputation was hurt by the publication then
they can often win even if every word of it was true.

There is a public interest defence. And I'd be interested in your
definition of "often" - can you provide some recent examples?

This, incidently,
is why the famous Usenet Libel cases were all run in the UK.

Are you suggesting that there has been a "Usenet Libel" trial in the
UK where the defendant lost even though they were telling the truth?

From the cases I've seen reported, the situation in practice is not
very different in Britain than in countries where truth is an absolute
defence.

-- Richard

 

[Walter Roberson]

|In article <[email protected]>,

|>In the UK, truth isn't very much of a defence at all, as best
|>I can tell: the question is more whether it was "necessary" to publish
|>it at all: if the person's reputation was hurt by the publication then
|>they can often win even if every word of it was true.

|There is a public interest defence. And I'd be interested in your
|definition of "often" - can you provide some recent examples?

I am thinking of the example of the celeb photographed exiting from
a rehab clinic after having publically said that she had not had
any drug problems; if I recall correctly, the celeb won the case on
appeal, on the basis that the public interest in the matter did
not outweigh the celeb's right to "privacy", even though the celeb
was apparently lying the public.


:>This, incidently,
:>is why the famous Usenet Libel cases were all run in the UK.

:Are you suggesting that there has been a "Usenet Libel" trial in the
:UK where the defendant lost even though they were telling the truth?

When it comes to libel, "truth" can be a matter of interpretation.
In at least one of the Usenet Libel cases, I agreed with the
criticisms that sparked the trial, and considered the comments
to be fair under the circumstances, and would not consider the
plaintiff's reputation to have been "harmed" by the explicit
phrasing of what many people were likely thinking about the plaintiff.
None the less, the defendant lost completely under UK law, with the
judge effectively ruling that the defendant did not "need" to
make the remarks.

You will have to forgive me if I do not make clear which case
I am thinking of: I have no wish to be sued by the plaintiff of that
case.

 

[Richard Tobin]

I am thinking of the example of the celeb photographed exiting from
a rehab clinic after having publically said that she had not had
any drug problems;

Presumably you mean the case of Naomi Campbell, in which she sued the
Daily Mirror for "breach of confidentiality", not libel. Even
Campbell did not claim that the Mirror could not report that she was
being treated for drug addiction. The publication of details of her
treatment and a photograph were found to be a violation of her privacy
that outweighed the public interest.

if I recall correctly, the celeb won the case on
appeal, on the basis that the public interest in the matter did
not outweigh the celeb's right to "privacy", even though the celeb
was apparently lying the public.

No, it was accepted by both sides that the fact that she had lied did
make it be in the public interest for the Mirror to report the fact of
her treatment. It was the publication of a photograph, not reporting
of facts, that determined this poarticular case.

You will have to forgive me if I do not make clear which case
I am thinking of: I have no wish to be sued by the plaintiff of that
case.

I can't really argue with that.

-- Richard

 

[Alan Balmer]

Last time I checked, the principle of "innocent till proven guilty" still
applied.

It's *presumed* innocent until proven guilty. And has nothing to do
with probabilities.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

I am thinking of the example of the celeb photographed exiting from
a rehab clinic after having publically said that she had not had
any drug problems; if I recall correctly, the celeb won the case on
appeal,

and quite right too

on the basis that the public interest in the matter did
not outweigh the celeb's right to "privacy", even though the celeb
was apparently lying the public.

and what businesss of our is it that she had a habit, and was embarassed /
ashamed to admit to it?

Don't get me started on 'public interest', the blasted law was introduced
to protect people revealing stuff that was important for the public to know
(crooked arms deals, illegal health & safety stuff etc), but has been
subverted to mean "stuff that people want to read about". Gah.