Software Needs Philosophers

[Philippa Cowderoy]

That also depends on the jurisdiction.

Hrmm, does that one differ in Scotland?

No, I was referring to the person who he was replying to, i.e., you.

Wrong pronoun, then.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

Hrmm, does that one differ in Scotland?

I don't believe so.

Wrong pronoun, then.

Well, your comment was challenged, and I offered a reasonable
interpretation of what you might have meant (which indicated a more
general point in any case, namely that libel law is not quite as simple
as the original poster was making it out to be). If you don't wish to
defend your position, that's fine, but pointing fingers is kind of weird
at this stage.

 

[Philippa Cowderoy]

I don't believe so.

My statement was intended in the context of UK law - I have to admit to
not knowing too much about what's different north of the border beyond the
infamous verdict though.

Well, your comment was challenged, and I offered a reasonable interpretation
of what you might have meant (which indicated a more general point in any
case, namely that libel law is not quite as simple as the original poster was
making it out to be). If you don't wish to defend your position, that's fine,
but pointing fingers is kind of weird at this stage.

I'd still appreciate being referred to as "she" rather than "he" though.

 

[Erik Max Francis]

I'd still appreciate being referred to as "she" rather than "he" though.

Oops, my bad. Never occurred to me after all these years, which is kind
of embarrassing, actually .

 

[EJP]

The idea of using Wikipedia to back up a legal point is rather amusing
... but still, none of the relevant parties involved live in countries
which have any form of criminal libel.

OK, OK, just proffered as information, not a conclusive proof. It's the
*courts* that back up legal points of course, not anything said or found
here.

 

[Mike Schilling]

I think what he was getting at is that, unlike many jurisdictions, writing
something factually true is _not_ in and of itself a defense against a
libel suit in the UK.

As for the reverse side of the issue, in jurisdictions where it _is_ a
defense, if one were to accuse him of being a pedophile but couldn't prove
it, that would certainly be an actionable offense.

In the U.S, for instance, you wouldn't have to prove it. It would be
sufficent to demonstrate that there's enough evidence supporting it that you
weren't reckless in writing it.

 

[George Neuner]

If I were to write, say, that Tony Blair's tax policy will lead to higher
deficits, I could be convicted of libel? Even if that's true, it's not a
priori provable.

DISCLAIMER - I AM NOT A LAWYER

In the US, the defense against a libel claim is to prove the statement
or accusation is true.

In the US, libel involves damage to someone's reputation by means of
deliberately false statements or accusations. Expert opinion is
explicitly protected from libel claims unless it malicious.
Non-expert opinion is generally judged on the intent of the author.
Unprovable supposition is generally held to be non-libelous, however
unprovable accusation is not allowed.

Moreover, in the US, political figures are explicitly denied some (but
not all) libel protections because it is expected that their actions
will cause some measure of public dissent.

I don't know UK defamation law but I suspect it is quite similar to US
law. In your polite example, your opinion of Tony Blair's policy
would be unprovable supposition at the time of the writing (as would
Blair's own) and would therefore not be libelous. However, if your
opinion took an accusatory tone saying, for example, that he was
increasing the public deficit to line his pockets, then you had better
be right.

George

 

[Robert Hicks]

No, it is a tort.

Can I have whipped cream and strawberries on that tort?

:Robert

 

[Surendra Singhi]

Its not Xah Lee, who abuses the system.

But people like "Erik Max Francis" and "Philippa Cowderoy" who carry on
nonsense discussions across mailing lists.

--
Surendra Singhi
http://ssinghi.kreeti.com

,----
| WHY SHOULD WE SAVE TIGER?
| Ans: Saving the tiger means saving mankind..
|
| Help http://pudang.tripod.com/
| or https://secure.worldwildlife.org/forms/tiger_appeal_1.cfm
`----