I know that FrontPageMag (and everything Horowitz-related) is bonkers. But I wasn’t really prepared to see I face I know staring out at me. Today they have “a piece attacking Brendan O’Leary”:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17538 , political scientist at UPenn, formerly of the LSE. I’ve know Brendan since we were undergraduates together in the late 70s. For most of the time I’ve known him he has been gently chiding me from the right for my “infantile leftism”. He’s been an advisor to top Labour politicians on Northern Ireland, always on the side of moderation. Now Brendan is a “leftist” and a “terror apologist”. Well, as I said, I knew that Horowitz was crazy, but it is helpful to have a marker against which to judge just how crazy.
Update: One small thought – Brendan’s reputation in the UK is such that he could sue FrontPageMag for libel in London. He’d stand every chance of success and some serious damages.
2nd update: the full text of the remarks that FrontPageMage characterize as “terror apology” are “online”:http://www.upenn.edu/almanac/v48/n04/OLeary.html for all to inspect.
{ 23 comments }
dsquared 03.30.05 at 6:39 am
And the Hitchens/Horowitz/Johnson cruise would make it highly implausible that they could claim they weren’t publishing here!
Andrew Brown 03.30.05 at 6:49 am
He’s a really charming, thoughtful well-informed guy who — when I made a radio programme about ethnic cleansing last year — was by a curious irony the most gung-ho about the invasion of Iraq (he was working as an advisor to the Kurds). Horowitz is nuts, and I hope O’Leary makes a fortune from him.
Kenneth Jordi 03.30.05 at 7:14 am
And which contention, pray tell, do you think makes Horowitz’s musings ‘a libel’ legally? If you think that calling somebody ‘a terror apologist’ might suffice, well then you should reconsider.
Delmore Macnamara 03.30.05 at 7:57 am
Kenneth, are you suggesting that O’Leary _is_ a terror apologist?
ajay 03.30.05 at 8:02 am
Under UK law, O’Leary would have to prove defamation. Specifically, he would have to prove: 1) that the words were published; 2) that they refer to him; 3) that they would lower him in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Innuendo counts, incidentally.
IANAL, though I’ve had a bit of training in libel law, but looking at the piece, I would say that it implies O’Leary is a) an anti-Semite b) a leftist c) a slavish follower of the ‘conspiracy-riddled Arab press’. The rest of what it says about him is probably fair comment, ie Horowitz’s opinion, rather than defamation (which is a defence). Being called a leftist is unlikely to be considered defamation by a British court (!) so a) and c) are probably his best bets.
mw 03.30.05 at 9:09 am
And the Hitchens/Horowitz/Johnson cruise would make it highly implausible that they could claim they weren’t publishing here!
How is that implausible? My god, are you suggesting that everything on the Internet is fair game for U.K. libel laws? Talk about ‘venue shopping’ man, the lawyers could have a field day!
As for the article itself, it strikes me as resonable to the extent that I could tell from the O’Leary quotes that Horowitz includes what O’Leary’s position is…and though I don’t agree with it, I certainly don’t find it outrageous as Horowitz does. As for the potentially libellous charges–is accusing somebody of ‘divided loyalty’ to America and Israel anti-semitic? Reasonable people can differ–Dershowitz thought it was, anyway.
In this instance, I find neither Horowitz’s writing about O’Leary crazy — nor the statements of O’Leary that Horowitz is criticizing crazy. These are impassioned differences about questions of critical importance–they need to be kept in the court of public discourse and out of U.K. libel courts (especially when the publication, the writer, and the ‘defamed’ are all outside the UK).
There is a case right now (for which I can’t find a link at the moment) of a woman writer who has been sued for libel in the U.K. even though her book was never published there because some number of copies had been ordered not from the U.S. and shipped overseas. She did not defend herself in the U.K. but has brought a countersuit in the U.S.
This is ridiculous and potentially chilling. The U.K. cannot ‘export’ its libel laws to the entire globe via the Internet. Public figures throughout the world cannot be allowed to intimidate their critics via the U.K. legal system.
Chris 03.30.05 at 9:22 am
Public figures throughout the world cannot be allowed to intimidate their critics via the U.K. legal system.
Maybe not. But someone who holds a British passport (and an Irish one), and is a former Professor at the LSE and an associate of leading British politicians should be able to use the UK legal system.
dsquared 03.30.05 at 9:25 am
My god, are you suggesting that everything on the Internet is fair game for U.K. libel laws?
No, but if you’re promoting tours of London while libelling people who made their career there, I think you’re fair game.
Matt 03.30.05 at 9:37 am
I happend to attend the post-9/11 discussion where O’Leary spoke at Penn that’s discussed in Horowitz’s (magazine’s) article. I don’t know O’Leary, so can’t remember for sure which of the speakers he was. But, all of them (even the right-wing historian) were reasonable, informative, and not, by any plausible stretch, “aplogists for terror.” This is (as if it were needed!) more evidence that Horowitz and his group are 100% nut-jobs.
MW said, “Reasonable people can differ”- right- but it is David Horowitz (and Alan Dershowitz) were talking about here, so I don’t see how this claim has anything to do w/ the post.
john b 03.30.05 at 9:40 am
The U.K. cannot ‘export’ its libel laws to the entire globe via the Internet. Public figures throughout the world cannot be allowed to intimidate their critics via the U.K. legal system.
It can and does, and they are. The only practical question is enforcement: a US court would view many UK libel cases as a break of the 1st Amendment and therefore would not seize US assets to pay any fines levied in the UK.
Whether the UK *should* be able to export its libel laws is another question (my answer: no, it should abolish them). However, for an American to question other countries’ use of extraterritorial jurisdiction is, err, mildly ironic.
Tim Worstall 03.30.05 at 9:58 am
What a coincidence, I had a piece at TCS, y’alls favourite object of derision, on this very point on Tuesday. It isn’t just the UK that exports its libel laws (although they are one of the scarier sets). The Ehrenrich (?) case, that revolves around whether a copy of her book made it into the jurisdiction, not whether it was published there. It’s happened before (dimly I recall an Arab language paper published in Egypt and a UK resident won damages on the basis of a few copies that made it in) and will almost certainly happen again. A Canadian sued and won in Canada over an archive article in a US newspaper’s internet site. Dow Jones settled (having lost the first case) in Australia over an article downloaded from Barron’s.
In effect, all blog posts (and other internet stuff) is subject to the laws of the country where it is downloaded…and there are 190 jurisdictions with defamation laws.
Whether it should be that way is another matter, but that’s the way it is.
jet 03.30.05 at 10:21 am
Sounds like FrontPage needs to start blocking UK ip addys. And if FrontPage was promoting London tours, wouldn’t their audience for those promotions most likely be outside of the UK?
roger 03.30.05 at 10:29 am
Horowitz’s nuttiness has so far done much less damage than the nuttiness of the British libel laws. Those laws were designed by an establishment afraid of criticism and function as a stupid muzzle on dissent. My favorite case of british libel insanity involved Shirley Temple and Grahame Greene. Greene wrote a review of a Shirley Temple movie in which he mentioned the exploitation of her pre-pubescent sexual allure in some movie, and she sued and won such damages that the magazine Greene was writing for went bankrupt.
And — with this comment, I suppose she could sue CT, if she wanted to.
Being gleeful about potential libel suits is not a good idea.
mw 03.30.05 at 10:31 am
It can and does, and they are. The only practical question is enforcement: a US court would view many UK libel cases as a break of the 1st Amendment and therefore would not seize US assets to pay any fines levied in the UK.
It isn’t–or shouldn’t be–a 1st amendment issue. It’s an issue of jurisdiction–the U.K. has no jurisdiction over potentially libel that is published in the U.S.
Whether the UK should be able to export its libel laws is another question (my answer: no, it should abolish them). However, for an American to question other countries’ use of extraterritorial jurisdiction is, err, mildly ironic.
Why? I’m not in favor of ‘extraterritorial jurisdiction’ by the U.S. either–why would you want to defend (or excuse) the extraterritorial use of U.K. libel laws on that basis?
john b 03.30.05 at 11:18 am
i) Depends what you mean by ‘published’; UK law says that it means ‘was made available for viewing in the UK’. In the context of the Internet, that means ‘was put on the Internet’. A US court may or may not decide to accept this argument.
ii) Fair play. It was a beam/mote thing, but a bit of a cheap shot nonetheless.
mw 03.30.05 at 1:19 pm
A US court may or may not decide to accept this argument.
Yes, well I’m assuming that US courts will opt for ‘not’. But that is hardly a solution–have an outstanding judgement against one in the UK, even if not enforceable in the US, is not a trivial matter, is it? Would one be free to travel to the UK without fear of legal action? How about EU countries? It strikes me that the US and other governments are ultimately going to have to take a more active approach rather than relying on US courts just not recognizing UK libel judgements.
JG 03.30.05 at 2:04 pm
It’s a little OT, but I’ve been wondering whether Kerry and Co. could sue the Swift Boat people under AMERICAN libel law. In the case of a public figure the bar is set very high. If, absent legal training, I understand it correctly, the required criteria are either “actual malice” or “reckless disregard for truth.” I would think that in the Swift case either would be a slam dunk. Would any lawyers in the crowd care to offer a more informed view?
lenin 03.30.05 at 3:49 pm
Can I just draw attention to one of the latest entrants to the orbit of the Moonbats:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/moonbatcentral/2005/03/chomsky-in-edinburgh.html
The salubrious Mr Kampf (http://oliverkampf.blogspot.com/) is so desperate for venues to pursue his Chomsky-stalking that he’ll willingly imbricate himself with conspiracy nuts and discarded Cold War witchfinders.
john b 03.30.05 at 3:50 pm
Would one be free to travel to the UK without fear of legal action? How about EU countries?
You could certainly face legal action if you went to the UK, and I’m not sure but would be interested to find out, respectively.
You could also have any assets you might happen to have in the UK seized, to pay any damages award (the latter is more relevant for corporations than non-UK-national individuals, with some exceptions).
W. Kiernan 03.30.05 at 4:12 pm
Speaking of libel, have you read some of the wild accusations that have been thrown around all over the U.S. press concerning Michael Schiavo? It’s far from as easy to sue someone for libel under U.S. law as it is in the U.K., but Mr. Schiavo is a private citizen, not a public figure, and some of the allegations I’ve read are amazingly reckless. He’s been directly accused, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, of causing Terri Schiavo’s coma back in 1990 by strangling her. Another accusation I’ve heard repeatedly is that he is pressing to have his wife’s life support withdrawn in order to cash in a “million-dollar life insurance policy”; this insurance policy would also appear to be imaginary.
Daniel 03.30.05 at 4:24 pm
It isn’t—or shouldn’t be—a 1st amendment issue. It’s an issue of jurisdiction—the U.K. has no jurisdiction over potentially libel that is published in the U.S.
It does have first amendment implications. US courts generally enforce UK rulings, unless they are repugnant to US law. Some UK libel wins stray into the area of being repugnant to US law because of the first amendment which you have and we don’t.
jet 03.30.05 at 4:31 pm
JG,
I too would love nothing more than for an impartial court to wade through the Swift Vote accusations. Perhaps that is why Kerry has not done so.
mw 03.30.05 at 6:52 pm
I too would love nothing more than for an impartial court to wade through the Swift Vote accusations. Perhaps that is why Kerry has not done so.
And Kerry still hasn’t released his military records–I don’t think any action against the swifties would be possible without doing so.
Not to mention, even if he won, the whole thing would almost certainly blow up in his face anyway. Part of the Swift Boat Veterans attack on Kerry had to do with his public testimony following his return from Vietnam and his meetings with North Vietnamese delegations in Paris–about which, from Kerry’s point of view, the less said and the less publicity the better.
Comments on this entry are closed.