Lots of fun and games coming out of the Telegraph / George Galloway libel trial, so I thought I might as well dig up the second ever post I did on CT, handicapping the race a bit. I’m not sure that I’ve got much to add to that post, to be honest; even the links seem to still be alive. The Telegraph is going for a defence of qualified privilege, and Galloway isn’t trying to suggest that the documents were fakes, so it is likely to all turn on the question of whether the Telegraph’s journalism at the time was “responsible”. In which case, my guess is that much will depend on the judge’s interpretation of a Telegraph editorial at the time which contained the phrase “there is a word for taking money from a foreign power … treason”. Charles Moore’s trash-talking of Galloway during the period when he thought GG wasn’t going to sue might also come into the equation. My guess is that Galloway wins, but wins small as he is in large part the author of his own misfortune by cuddling up to Saddam so much. A bit disappointing for free speech fans, because it maintains the irritating state of affairs arising from Times vs Reynolds; while the House of Lords has hung out the tantalising prospect of a generalised public interest defence, nobody has actually won a case on one yet.
The joys of life with a really “living” constitution. And liberals think it’s a good idea?
Conservatives, by contrast, prefer a constitution that’s dead . . .
What’s deader; A Constitution that rarely changes, but IS in force, or one which has no effect on the government, because any time the government wants to do something contrary to it, it’s “reinterpreted”?
Brett, do you know a lot about the British Constitution? If that is what you are characterising you are getting it seriously wrong. I suggest, by the way, that you read Jeremy Waldron’s very powerful case against judicial review in The Dignity of Legislation; he presents a very powerful case against the US way of doing things as the optimal feasible way of protecting actual rights.
“Dignity of Legislation”? That title would cause outright laughter amongst anyone in a red state. My sister spent a summer at Oxford studying English law and came back with not much good to say about the lack of a written constitution, but plenty of new found respect for the US constitution.
Not having any stumbling blocks in the way of what passes for the flavor of the week in parliment certainly sounds like a recipe for trouble. Legislating when fast food ads can run? I guess English parliment is now helping the English eat their food because they are so helpless?
Not of any particular worth, but I have a friend with a PhD in international law from Oxford and while he will never engage in a academic debate with me because he feels he must teach me 4 semester’s of information before anything intelligent can be discussed, he did comment that the US is very lucky to have their system and the UK system was more…..”pliable”.
brett bellmore wrote, What’s deader; A Constitution that rarely changes, but IS in force, or one which has no effect on the government, because any time the government wants to do something contrary to it, it’s “reinterpreted”?
I take it you think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided?
“What’s deader”
an abortion doctor killed by someone who never had a say in whether abortion should be legalised
or an abortion doctor and someone who did have a democratic stake in a question of fundametal human rights
Yeah, this discussion is really going to go somewhere valuable. Too bad, I’d be interested in the comparative legal study.
I meant comment thread, the post is interesting.
It would be intresting to see a compare and contrast of libel law in the UK and the US. It was my understanding that even with the 1st amendment, truth wasn’t an ultimate defense in a libel case until relatively recently in the US.
Hm….liberals defending democracy against judicial usurpation, and conservatives ridiculing them for it….I guess I have to take back (partially) what I said here last week—it looks like conservatives believe they have the upper hand on some fronts in the culture wars, after all.
(Of course, I’ve found Americans in general, despite their history and reputation, to exhibit considerable casual distaste for democracy. Whenever I comment about how bizarre I find it that nine people in black bathrobes effectively rule their country, I’m invariably met with disdainful remarks about the “tyranny of the majority”, “a republic, not a democracy”, and so on. It makes one wonder: if they don’t even care to defend it here, where “We the people” is the country’s whole raison d’etre, then who on earth will?)
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”? Admittedly, some consistent isolationists would say both, but they are a minority.
“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.
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.)
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.
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.]
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.]
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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?
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!
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
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review