Comments on: Galloway libel

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:33:06 +0000

But that’s irrelevant since both sides have accepted that the Telegraph didn’t forge the documents. All the Reynolds defence means is that if the Telegraph was responsible and if the story was important (which it clearly was) then it isn’t acionable. Galloway has to prove that the paper didn’t act in a responsible manner, and that is damn hard to prove. He’ll lose, and it’s extraordinary that, once the provenance of the documents was accepted, he decided to sue at all

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:00:37 +0000

On the substance of the case, I always found the provenance of the documents totally unbelievable. A reporter turns up at a looted, burned-out, building in a foreign country and happens on the one document out of millions that would make a front-page scoop and embarrass one of his paper’s political opponents into the bargain ? Pull the other one!

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 18:56:30 +0000

“because they tend to make trials last longer and cost more” Which sugguests that both sides expect a victory to result in at most nominal damages – since then both sides have an interest in minimizing costs?

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:54:46 +0000

Brett, look, for example: a man menacing me with a nail studded club asks me for a significant part of my income, of which significant part will go to finance what I think is a criminal war (luckily I live abroad and have a large deduction, so it doesn’t really happen). And I consent (or accept, if you prefer). But if the guy with the club also told me to suck his dick, or, say, tried to conscript my daughter and send her to fight this war, then I would probably stop accepting and try to do something about it. And at that point, if I am a typical enough person, – and it doesn’t have to be a majority – if, say, 20% or even 10% stop consenting/accepting – then the system will collapse. That’s all there is to it. Almost happened 35 years ago in the US.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 16:23:18 +0000

The Telegraph most likely asked to get rid of a jury because they tend to make trials last longer and cost more. Galloway probably agreed for the same reason.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:08:31 +0000

“Any government, including any People’s Repbulic, has to have a certain degree of consent of the governed, otherwise it can’t function.” Just because you don’t attack the man menacing you with a nail studded club doesn’t mean you’ve consented to be mugged. All governments such as the ‘People’s Republic’ need is resignation, not consent.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:08:01 +0000

I didn’t realise they’ve waived a jury. That’s very interesting. Galloway’s had such terrible press in this country (much of it justified, admittedly) that it probably would be difficult for him to get a fair trial with a jury. I’m surprised the Telegraph agreed. Maybe they think a judge is more likely to accept a Reynolds defence than a jury.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:46:54 +0000

surely the most distinctive difference with British libel law is that its the only (just about) civil matter that has juries. But in this case both sides hav agreed to dispense with a jury – is that because they both see the public now as implacably partisan? A bit like how some people see the Supreme Court.

By: Giles

Giles — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:45:44 +0000

By: abb1

abb1 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:14:19 +0000

I’m pretty sure you know the difference between a republic and the method of government which hides under the label “People’s Repbulic” Any government, including any People’s Repbulic, has to have a certain degree of consent of the governed, otherwise it can’t function. We have a short and not necessarily conclusive experiment that suggests that a model with a short vague pamphlet called ‘constitution’ interpreted by 9 wise people may work OK and an even shorter and even less conclusive experiment that suggest that a model with 15 wise men devising a ‘party line’ may fail in some cases. Big deal.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:19:24 +0000

Speaking as a British liberal/leftist, I’m all in favour of a written constitution. But anyway, this case is far more interesting as a test of the Reynolds defence than in its specifics. Britain really needs a reliable qualified privilege defence to fix its absurdly biased libel laws. As we saw in the 90s with Aitken and Hamilton, politicians are more than willing to use libel in an attempt to suppress investigative journalism. That’s not to say they have no rights, and I think the US libel law goes too far the other way, but public interest journalism conducted responsibly and in good faith should not be punished. [Incidentally, I’m not saying the Telegraph’s case necessarily fits that description.]

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:18:37 +0000

By: Martin Wisse

Martin Wisse — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:09:47 +0000

What I find odd is the fetishism of the US constitution by conservatives poften coupled to a distinct lack of respect for the practical implications of this constitution and the values it represent.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:44:50 +0000

As for 9 judges ruling the country, technically it is 5 judges. And I think the system would work much better if the tool of judicial impeachment had not fallen into disuse. (And no, impeaching a judge for repeatedly making extra-constitutional decisions would not be a threat to the Constitution.)

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:40:24 +0000

“Like Dan, I’ve always found “a republic, not a democracy” strange. If this is OK,what’s wrong with “a people’s republic, not a democracy”?” You aren’t serious right? I’m pretty sure you know the difference between a republic and the method of government which hides under the label “People’s Repbulic”. I’ll assume that my sarcasm detector is off tonight. As for US libel vs. UK libel. I suspect that both are just a little off (in opposite directions) from what I would consider ideal. NYT Times v. Sullivan goes a bit too much leeway to publishing organizations. Reckless disregard for the truth is incredibly difficult to prove, so media outlets get a pass almost all the time. On the other hand, I think that putting the burden of proof almost entirely on the publishing company is too much. (And if that is an incorrect summary of English law I’m sure someone will say so.) Frankly, as far as I’m concerned Galloway is libel-proof. You have to have a good reputation in order for libel to damage it.