Freedom Of Speech In Your Country

[Martinus]

Fun fact: the conservative catholic Polish government of the time was probably one of the very few ones in Europe that condemned the Dutch newspaper for printing Mohammad cartoons.

[Sheilbh]

Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).

Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law.  The trouble is it's the most difficult defence.  On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.

[Martinus]

Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).

Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law.  The trouble is it's the most difficult defence.  On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.

Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).

[Sheilbh]

Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).

Yeah.  If something's true, with a couple of exceptions like spent criminal convictions, then you've a total defence.  But it's very difficult to prove.  The public interest defence is basically for cases where you can't demonstrate truth and it's a factual allegation rather than 'fair comment'. 

Edit:  But they're all separate defences.  You're fine if you can prove truth, you don't need to demonstrate that it was then fair comment or in the public interest.

[Martinus]

Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).

Yeah.  If something's true, with a couple of exceptions like spent criminal convictions, then you've a total defence.  But it's very difficult to prove.  The public interest defence is basically for cases where you can't demonstrate truth and it's a factual allegation rather than 'fair comment'. 

Edit:  But they're all separate defences.  You're fine if you can prove truth, you don't need to demonstrate that it was then fair comment or in the public interest.

Ok gotcha. In Poland you have to prove both.

[Razgovory]

How do you "prove" things in a country with no concept of Logic, Mathematics, or Science?

[Pat]

Well, I meant more in the sense of printing something in a newspaper, as this is where libel lawsuits are now most popular. I thought that you had this "public interest" thing too (at least that's what I remember from Brazen discussing UK law here).

Yeah.  If something's true, with a couple of exceptions like spent criminal convictions, then you've a total defence.  But it's very difficult to prove.  The public interest defence is basically for cases where you can't demonstrate truth and it's a factual allegation rather than 'fair comment'. 

Edit:  But they're all separate defences.  You're fine if you can prove truth, you don't need to demonstrate that it was then fair comment or in the public interest.

Ok gotcha. In Poland you have to prove both.

Same in Sweden.

So in the UK you can register FrankIsAFaggot.co.uk with details of Frank's faggotry and then send the link to all his family, friends, co-workers and clients etc with the intent to harm Frank and it's OK as long as it's true?

[Sheilbh]

So in the UK you can register FrankIsAFaggot.co.uk with details of Frank's faggotry and then send the link to all his family, friends, co-workers and clients etc with the intent to harm Frank and it's OK as long as it's true?

You're not defaming someone if it's true.  If the statement's true then the defendant's been entirely exonerated, with a couple of exceptions, so motive doesn't matter.

That example would probably be covered by Frank's right to privacy and I think it's more than possible a judge would throw it out as non-defamatory.  It's only defamation if it would cause a substantial change of opinion by reasonable people towards you.  So for example someone sued for libel having been accused of being a snitch and the judge threw it out on the grounds that reasonable people inform the police.  I'm not sure that being acused of being gay would now count as defamatory, maybe 20 years ago.

Of course in English law the burden of proof is on the defendant and the assumption is that the statement is defamatory.  So you'd have to have lots of evidence.

[Josquius]

So for example someone sued for libel having been accused of being a snitch and the judge threw it out on the grounds that reasonable people inform the police.  I'm not sure that being acused of being gay would now count as defamatory, maybe 20 years ago.

Could be an interesting case that.
Officially of course it isn't.
But in practice...could well see some arguments that in business X to be seen as gay is damaging, etc...

[dps]

Obviously, we also have civil lawsuits for libel and here the situation is similar to the UK - i.e. truth is not a sufficient defense but you also must show a "public interest" in publishing some information (information about private life of people does not meet this criterion frequently).

Truth is almost always a total defence in English libel law.  The trouble is it's the most difficult defence.  On a purely practical level chances are the claimant has the proof as to whether what the defendant said was true or not.

In US law the truth of a libel (or slander) is an absolute defense.  The problem, as you alluded too, is that it's an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proving the truth of the statement falls on the defendent.

There's not a general requirement that a statement in a paper be in the public interest or such.  However, even if one is protected from libel or slander charges by being able to prove the truth of a statement, it's possible that one may be sued for invasion of privacy or the like, if the person the statement was about isn't a public figure of some sort.  For example, take the case of John Edwards.  He ran for President--there's no doubt that he's a public figure of national note--and there's pretty much irrefutable evidence that he cheated on his wife, so a newpaper--say USA Today--won't have face any liability if they print that he committed adultery.  On the other hand, lemonjello, while he has admitted here that he has cheated on his wife, and is a successful attorney, probably isn't a public figure on a national scale, so USA Today, while they couldn't successfully be sued for libel if they found out his real name and ran a story saying that he had committed adultery because they could use his posts on Languish to prove the truth of the claim, might be able to be sued successfully for invading his privacy.  However, he probably is a public figure in the city where he lives, so a local newspaper there would probably not have to worry about an invasion of privacy suit, either.

[Habbaku]

How do you "prove" things in a country with no concept of Logic, Mathematics, or Science?

Swords and fire, I imagine.

[Warspite]

What is the legal extent of freedom of speech in your country and how does it differ in its practice ?

What do you regard as acceptable and unacceptable in terms of free speech, and to what extent do you exercise the right in you own life and how tolerant are you of others engaging in freedom of expression ?


An example from the UK, an acquaintance of mine shouted out "no more war" at a remembrance ceremony and has subsequently charge with "  'use of threatening, abusive or insulting words/disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO SECTION 5 (1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986." 

I wouldn't have done this myself, but how would his act have been reacted to in your country ?

Was your friend at the Cenotaph???

[mongers]

What is the legal extent of freedom of speech in your country and how does it differ in its practice ?

What do you regard as acceptable and unacceptable in terms of free speech, and to what extent do you exercise the right in you own life and how tolerant are you of others engaging in freedom of expression ?


An example from the UK, an acquaintance of mine shouted out "no more war" at a remembrance ceremony and has subsequently charge with "  'use of threatening, abusive or insulting words/disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby CONTRARY TO SECTION 5 (1) AND (6) OF THE PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1986." 

I wouldn't have done this myself, but how would his act have been reacted to in your country ?

Was your friend at the Cenotaph???

He was in parliament square at the time, so I guess that's 150yds from the Cenotaph proper, so probably wasn't heard there; though obviously he must have been overheard by police and visitors close to Parliament.

[Warspite]

I see. I was at the Cenotaph and could hear someone shouting that at the start of the two minutes' silence, but from up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square.

[mongers]

I see. I was at the Cenotaph and could hear someone shouting that at the start of the two minutes' silence, but from up Whitehall towards Trafalgar Square.

Yes that could have been anyone from that direction, a protestor, a tourist, student, kids mucking around.