|
|
Vertaal:
              De prijs van vrije toespraak
Donderdag, 18 September, 2008 Door George Monbiot | Zo weg zagen wij hem. Vorige week, in een overwinning voor zowel geneeskunde als vrije toespraak, liet vallen Matthias Rath zijn lasterkostuum tegen de Beschermer. Maar het schijnt verbazend dat de hoven van dit land hem toestonden om dit geval na te streven. Rath, een Duitse arts, schijnt om Zuid-Afrikanen aangemoedigd te hebben die lijden aan HIV ophouden en gebruikend anti-retroviral drugs zijn vitaminepillen in plaats daarvan nemen. Verscheidene van hen stierven. Het is een belangrijk verhaal, dat aantoont dat de journalisten na allen van enig nut zijn. Maar de Beschermer bevond zich om honderdduizenden ponden te verliezen voor het hebben van impudence om het te publiceren. Deze krant is groot om voor te zorgen, en op Maandag kon het ook genoeg zijn wettelijk geschil met Tesco regelen. Maar het net dat gebruikte Rath nu wordt gegoten om steeds kleiner gebraden gerecht te vangen. In het verleden de weinig dagen, heeft de Club van de Voetbal van de Woensdag van Sheffield zijn gevallen tegen sommige van zijn ventilators (1.2) gelaten vallen. Ik mag nu over het slechtste voorbeeld schrijven van wettelijke intimidatie ik ooit heb gezien. De club heeft ernstige problemen, aan en uit de hoogte gehad, en veel van zijn ventilators gebruiken een Internet forum - owlstalk.co.uk - om hen te bespreken. Zij maken het soort commentaren u om op om het even welke besprekingsraad zou veronderstellen te vinden, en die normaal binnen 15 minuten zou vergeten worden. Twee en de halve jaren geleden de club lanceerden zijn eerste kostuum. Hebben nu slechts de mensen die deze commentaren te voorschijn kwamen knipperend uit labyrinthine nightmare van Engelse wet postten. Zoals Geoffrey Robertson en Andrew Nicol in hun uitstekende Wet van boekMedia verklaren, dateren de de belasteringswetten van Engeland terug naar een statuut dat in 1275 wordt gecre�ėrd. De misdadige inbreuk van scandalummagnatum werd bedacht om de „grote mensen van het koninkrijk“ tegen verhalen te beschermen die de mensen tegen hen konden bewegen. Drie later eeuwen, stond de Kamer van de Ster noblemen toe om burgerlijke acties voor laster te lanceren, om hen van een alternatief aan duelleren (3) te voorzien. Zij maakten vruchtbaar gebruik van dit voorrecht tot het Akte van de Laster van de Vos van 1792 bepaalde dat de eiser (de persoon die het geval brengt) moest bewijzen dat de woorden die tegen hem worden gebruikt vals waren, kwaadwillig en beschadigend. Dit betekent die lasterwet 216 jaar geleden liberaler was en meer in overeenstemming met het principe van vrije toespraak dan het vandaag is. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Robertson and Nicol show, “the common law was re-fashioned to serve the British class system from the perspective of … the Victorian club.” To protect wealthy people from criticism, the courts reversed Fox’s burden of proof. They created a presumption that any derogatory remark made about a gentleman must be false. This remains the case today. Defamation differs from all other civil or criminal laws in Britain: the burden of proof is on the defendant. The law remains the privilege of gentlemen, by which I mean people who are able to afford costs that often exceed a million pounds on each side. Cases tend to be resolved by sheer financial might, as the plaintiffs bankrupt the defendants, or force them to give in before their money runs out. This ensures that the law retains its 13th Century function. It guarantees that most attempts to hold the wealthy to account founder before they are launched, as people bite their tongues for fear of losing their homes. Since 1879, corporations have also been able to sue for libel(4). The inequality of arms this causes is compounded by the fact that there is no legal aid for defamation cases. Lawyers are now allowed to fight these suits on a no-win, no-fee basis, but this freedom is double-edged: if a defendant loses, he could end up paying double the claimant’s legal costs. This is the context in which Sheffield Wednesday went to court to demand the names and email addresses of 14 people who had posted comments on owlstalk. Here are some of the comments over which the club sued. “What an embarrassing, pathetic, laughing stock of a football club we’ve become”. “Another day, another blunder. I doubt even Leeds were in such a mess this time last summer, and look what happened to them”. “I am waiting with baited breath to hear who the Chuckle Brothers have signed after their trip to watch players abroad. With the amount of money they have to spend and the wages they can offer the best we can hope for is that little known Transvestitavian International I.Sukblodov, who last scored in a brothel.”(5) Such comments were deemed by the Sheffield Wednesday’s lawyers to be “false and seriously defamatory messages”(6) which had caused grievous injury to the delicate flowers who ran the club. (They should try posting an article on the Guardian’s Comment is Free site). The lawyers threatened “proceedings to include claims for injunctions, damages, interest and legal costs (which could be substantial).”(7) The judge threw most of the application out, but instructed the forum’s host to reveal the email addresses of four of the posters, whose remarks seem to me to be almost as trivial as those he dismissed(8). This took place a year ago, and the long shadow of the law hung over the posters until the club’s lawyers dropped the case last week. Another case dates back to February 2006, when the club sent a warning letter to a fan called Nigel Short. When he received the letter he offered to apologise and to change his comments, but the club rejected this. He was able to fight it only because he found a lawyer – Mark Lewis of George Davies Solicitors in Manchester – who was incensed by this case and was prepared to represent him. “I’ve had two and a half years of worrying I was going to lose my house”, Short tells me. “It’s been hell. If Mark hadn’t done this no win, no fee, I would have been bankrupt by now.”(9) In November 2007, Short was diagnosed with throat cancer. The case continued. But on Wednesday 3rd September he announced that his treatment had been successful(10). On Friday 5th, the club dropped the case and agreed to pay his costs. It issued a press release which suggested it had done so because of “Mr Short’s medical condition.”(11) I asked the club whether it had abandoned the case because it knew that Nigel would now live to fight the action. It has refused to answer my questions.(12) The point of this story is not that the directors of Sheffield Wednesday have behaved like a bunch of petulant bullies. It’s that the law equips them to do so. Most people see this as an issue only for journalists. But the internet ensures that the law of defamation now threatens anyone who stands up for what he believes to be right. This autumn the English branch of PEN, which defends the freedom to write, will launch a campaign against our libel law. But where are the rest of you? Where are the petitions, the public protests, the lobbies of parliament? Why is this 13th-Century law still permitted to stifle legitimate dissent? Wake up Britain: your freedoms are disappearing into the pockets of barristers and billionaires. References: 1. K&L Gates, 9th September 2008. SWFC and others v Neil Hargreaves. Notice of discontinuance. 2. Irwin Mitchell, 5th September 2008. SWFC and Kaven Walker v Nigel Short. Notice of discontinuance. 3. Geoffrey Robertson QC and Andrew Nicol QC, 2008. Media Law, 5th Edition. Penguin, London. 4. Geoffrey Robertson, pers comm. 5. K&L Gates, 10th August 2007. Schedule attached to letter sent to George Davies Solicitors. 6. SWFC and Others, 14th September 2007. Claim Form v Neil Hargreaves. No.HQ07X03169. 7. K&L Gates, 10th August 2007. Letter to George Davies Solicitors. 8. Richard Parkes QC, Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division, 2nd October 2007. Approved Judgment, Case No: HQ07X03169. 9. Nigel Short, pers comm. 10. http://nigelshort.blog.co.uk/2008/06/24/2008/07/27/they-say-a-picture-pa… 11. SWFC Ltd, 5th September 2008. Statement. This appears to have been removed from SWFC’s site, but I have retained a copy. Please write to me if you want to see it. 12. Colin Wood, SWFC, 15th September 2008. By email. Have Your Say: The price of free speech Please read our posting guidelines before posting. Alternatively you can discuss this report here. Related News
|
Baby paracetamol asthma concern Last post by loki @ 08:48 AM Go to Forum
| Latest Topics
Food tests urged over illnesses Last post by loki @ 08:44 AM Stanford University offers free online CS & Robotics Courses Last post by loki @ 08:41 AM UK to sign UN children convention Last post by loki @ 08:31 AM Heres a question for you all! Last post by loki @ 08:27 AM Best comedians that talk about the American hypocrisy Last post by Unregistered @ 08:19 AM Rice finally admits Georgia started the War Last post by loki @ 08:13 AM Kenny Johannemann - Witness To WTC Explosions On 9/11 Kills Himself Last post by loki @ 07:59 AM Barry Jennings - Key Witness to WTC 7 Explosions Dead at 53 Last post by loki @ 07:47 AM 9-11 Barry Jennings UNCUT: my letter to BBC Complaints Last post by loki @ 07:42 AM  Email This Page To A Friend Latest Headlines
More Breaking News  Archive |
The views expressed in the RINF news wire and newsletter are the sole responsibility of the author (s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the webmaster. RINF.COM: Breaking News & Alternative Media is Copyleft - Copy & Distribute Freely. News Forum |
Loading ...
I agree with Julie Birchall re Monbiot. But, what an excellent article by GM.