Comments on: Remember The Libel Law Changes? http://charlottegore.com/2009/04/25/remember-the-libel-law-changes.html Free Trade and Free Minds. Politics for Reasonable People. Independent Political Blogging. Top 20 Blog. Libertarianism. Laser Kitties. Tue, 10 May 2011 21:47:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Ade http://charlottegore.com/2009/04/25/remember-the-libel-law-changes.html/comment-page-1#comment-2207 Ade Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:51:35 +0000 http://charlottegore.com/?p=613#comment-2207 Criminal libel assumes that you publish an untruth so bad that it amounts to breach of the peace. It is rarely used, and it doesn't have a good record. James Goldsmith (lots of money) tried to use it against Private Eye in the 70s, basically to give them a hard time. Roger Gleaves, a convicted sexual offender, took a private prosecution in 1980 against the authors of the book Johnny Go Home and forced them to prove his guilt a second time in court. I think it is legitimate to look at scrapping criminal libel because it is most often used to try to stifle free speech. Damian McBride is being sued by Nadine Dorris and has lost his job. Things are pretty bad for him without criminal libel. Criminal libel assumes that you publish an untruth so bad that it amounts to breach of the peace. It is rarely used, and it doesn’t have a good record.

James Goldsmith (lots of money) tried to use it against Private Eye in the 70s, basically to give them a hard time. Roger Gleaves, a convicted sexual offender, took a private prosecution in 1980 against the authors of the book Johnny Go Home and forced them to prove his guilt a second time in court.

I think it is legitimate to look at scrapping criminal libel because it is most often used to try to stifle free speech.

Damian McBride is being sued by Nadine Dorris and has lost his job. Things are pretty bad for him without criminal libel.

]]> By: MatGB http://charlottegore.com/2009/04/25/remember-the-libel-law-changes.html/comment-page-1#comment-2197 MatGB Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:18:41 +0000 http://charlottegore.com/?p=613#comment-2197 The idea of criminal libel even existing is a strange one to me, and I believe anomalous under common law judicial systems (ie English style). Printing something that's not true about someone being a criminal offense just seems wrong. Worth noting that none of this has actually happened in any way yet anyway. Also? McBride was an arse, they never printed any of the stories, hell, they never even launched the blog, they were silly story ideas being knocked around by idiots who got carried away. Dorries is playing it for all she can get out of it, but for purely political reasons. To an extent, good, the more publicity <i>she</i> gets as a "leading Tory backbencher" the less chance they have of winning an overall majority. The idea of her getting her hands on any real power is disquieting. The idea of criminal libel even existing is a strange one to me, and I believe anomalous under common law judicial systems (ie English style). Printing something that’s not true about someone being a criminal offense just seems wrong.

Worth noting that none of this has actually happened in any way yet anyway.

Also? McBride was an arse, they never printed any of the stories, hell, they never even launched the blog, they were silly story ideas being knocked around by idiots who got carried away. Dorries is playing it for all she can get out of it, but for purely political reasons. To an extent, good, the more publicity she gets as a “leading Tory backbencher” the less chance they have of winning an overall majority.

The idea of her getting her hands on any real power is disquieting.

]]>