Britney Spears has resorted to the courts of justice in Belfast, Northern Ireland, to slap down the National Enquirer, while singers Paula Abdul and Whitney Houston are reported to be contemplating similar trips in search of the plaintiff-friendly libel laws of the United Kingdom. Aren’t they just a little bit ashamed of themselves? The “speedy results and whopping damages” of defamation suits in the U.K. “might be nice for the celebrity claimants. But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently. These libel tourists are helping to prop up our illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws, which are an offense to free speech and open debate.” (Brendan O’Neill, “Throwing our judicial junk in Britain’s backyard (or courts)”, Christian Science Monitor, Jul. 24). But actually, reports Mark Stephens in The Times (London) Online, it is global business magnates rather than entertainment figures who are nowadays the busiest libel tourists in the British courts. They come from America, Russia and the Middle East to squelch the naughty insinuations of the financial press that not everything about their business dealings is on the up and up (“New celebrities of the libel courts”, Jul. 18).
6 Comments
“But it’s bad for those of us who live in Britain permanently.”
If you don’t like the libel laws in your country, have them changed! Gosh, you’re blaming everyone else but your own country for your screwed up laws!
Is it really Britney Spears’ fault that your country has illiberal, antidemocratic, and ‘repugnant’ libel laws?!
If you don’t like the libel laws in your country, have them changed!
If only it was that simple.
UK politicians like the libel laws just fine as they are for their own libel suits, so where’s their incentive to change things?
I was under the impression that the libel laws in the UK were loser-pays. Is that so? What’s so horrible about the libel laws as they stand? Here in the states, libel and slander are virtually unwinnable cases, so the press can print anything about anyone, regardless of truth or accuracy.
“so the press (in the US) can print anything about anyone, regardless of truth or accuracy.”
Well, not anyone. Any untruthful statement printed against someone who is not in the public spotlight, e.g., not a celebrity or a politician, would be subject to a valid libel lawsuit. So if the New York Times did a front page article about your Aunt Bertha’s pedophilia it would be subject to a libel lawsuit, assuming of course that your Aunt is not a pedophile.
Against someone in the public spotlight, the press can print falsity unless it is done with malice. Thus, it can print rumors unless the reporter is doing it with malice, which obviously is hard to prove.
And I’m not entirely sure why you think our system is a bad thing. The general public is protected while the press is free to investigate our politicians and others who push themselves into the spotlight. Basically put, if someone wants to be under the spotlight, they shouldn’t complain about being under the spotlight.
“UK politicians like the libel laws just fine as they are for their own libel suits…”
Oh, I guess you’re right. It is Britney Spears’ fault!
Anything that gets the European slander press on their knees is good with me. They’re disgusting, if anyone except the press were to say the things they say they’d be arrested for it.