Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:24 pm  

tb wrote:

Repeating a libel and putting 'allegedly' in front of it is not a defence in English law, no. It never has been.

You missed the important part of that post. There is a well known suffix to it.


"Ask Ian Hislop"

Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 4:06 pm  

Say (X) person is or isn't doing something dodgy and someone else (y) says something libelous. Is it ok to then write, say on a forum that

"Y alledges that X is doing something"

or can i/the forum be sued for that or do they go to the person who made the initial statement or can they sue the original person and the person that quotes the original person?

Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 5:45 pm  

It's not a black and white area, but you'd be on dodgy ground as you'd be (potentially) repeating the libel.
Fortunately, libel cases are notoriously expensive to bring, and have a habit of unearthing other dirty linen.

The forum I ran for some years got threatened with a libel case some years ago - we knew what we were saying was true, but it was difficult to prove. The person who threatened to sue us spoke to his solicitor who essentially went "the forum has no money, I'm going to charge you a fortune but it's your call" and that was the last we heard of it.

Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:39 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote:

The forum I ran for some years got threatened with a libel case some years ago - we knew what we were saying was true, but it was difficult to prove.

It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.

Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:37 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth.

Technically not quite, the defence (at present) is "justification" but the unfortunate part is, you need to establish the justification. In order words, it is up to you to prove that the statement was true.

If it was true, then it wasn't a libel. It wouldn't be much consolation, but the fact that you lost your case cos you couldn't prove it was true means that you didn't prove it wasn't a libel.

It's a bit on the lines of 'innocent until proved guilty' - that is, 'libellous until proved true'

It is a bad aspect of current libel laws though moves are afoot for long overdue reform. Still, though, there is a point to the law as it is. Otherwise, anybody could say any lie (eg X beats his wife) and have a perfect defence simply by saying 'it's the truth'.

But if you can prove it's true, then you do have a perfect libel defence.

Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 8:56 pm  

Big Graeme wrote: It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth. So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel? I didn't say it wasn't possible to prove it, just difficult. If push had come to shove then we'd have proven it. So sorry, but you're wrong. They may try to sue me for libel, but thats a different argument. The statement, if anything, is defamatory, but defamatory statements are not the same as libelous ones. To use the example given, it was most certainly a defamatory statement to say he was a thief, but it was't libelous as it could be shown to be true. Point 5 here: http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/ ... libel.html is worth bearing in mind.

Big Graeme wrote: It doesn't matter, you can still libel someone by telling the truth. So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel? I didn't say it wasn't possible to prove it, just difficult. If push had come to shove then we'd have proven it. So sorry, but you're wrong. They may try to sue me for libel, but thats a different argument. The statement, if anything, is defamatory, but defamatory statements are not the same as libelous ones. To use the example given, it was most certainly a defamatory statement to say he was a thief, but it was't libelous as it could be shown to be true. Point 5 here: http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/ ... libel.html is worth bearing in mind.

Re: Allegedly... : Sun Jan 22, 2012 9:05 pm  

Scooter Nik wrote:

So if I say that someone is a thieving twot, and can prove it, that's still libel?

Nope, see I used the word can, as you say the burden of proof is on you not the plaintiff.