LIBEL AND THE WORLD OF BLOGGING
Britain’s libels laws are a constant source of concern. The latest victim from the blogging world is Alex Hilton who runs labour Home.
Now Alex is an odd fish, who has made some very questionable judgements, such as when he described centre left MP Jon Cruddas in the following terms: “the Labour politician most reminiscent of Oswald Mosley, he is dangerous, and should be kept away from power at all costs”
But nevertheless, it seems that someone who was previously a member of Respect, and who has since defected to the Conservative party, has brought a libel case against Alex. Dave Osler comfirms that this case doesn’t involve any of the main players in Respect, but an individual called Johanna Kaschke.
Labour Home is an important internet resource that aggregates articles from Labour supporting blogs; the use of libel actions to silence blogs is worrying, and I hope that Socialist unity readers will rally to Alex’s support.
Please read the following from Labour Home
Comrades,
As you may know, I sold Labourhome in July, though I still run it and with no interference from the new owner.However, last year, someone started a defamation action against me over a Labourhome article and the expenses are bourne by me, they were not transferred to Progressive Media, the new owner.
So far this legal case has cost me £4,022 and it is still on-going. This is my plea to Labourhome readers for contributions towards my legal costs.
I can’t tell you too much about the case because I don’t want to annoy the court. But this is what I am comfortable telling you.
An active Labourhome user wrote a piece about the past of a Labour member who had defected to Respect. That person has since joined the Conservative Party.
The Labourhome user is also being sued by this particular Tory, who is a litigant in person and has no lawyer.
The offended person contact me about the piece, which I immediately deleted. I offered the front and centre spot on Labourhome to the offended person for their right of reply or to write something else of their own choice. My offer was declined.
Because of my actions, my lawyer says I have an absolute defence under Section One of the Defamation Act. I also have other defence strategies available, one of which is the possibility that the article was not defamatory, thought this is still being explored.
Because the complainant is a litigant in person, this case has been more complicated than normal and I have actually received a total of four writs before it got tidied up into one action. This is partly why this defence is so expensive.
Despite the likelihood that I will probably win this case, I do not have a strong prospect of recouping my costs, at least in a reasonable timescale. I don’t have the five-figure sum the complainant wants as a settlement.
I would be very very grateful if readers would consider donating any sum towards my legal costs. I built Labourhome two and a half years ago as an open forum for Labour supporters because I believed it was needed. I’m in court because of the freedom of this forum and I can tell you the whole situation is pretty depressing.
Any contribution will be gratefully received. If you don’t have any money but would like to help, please email a link to this plea for help to others who might be able to help.Thank you so much,
Alex Hilton
07985 384 859
alexhilton@gmail.com
Andy
I can confirm that I am a defendent in a separate action brought by the same litigant. I am allowed to say - as court documents are a matter of public record, after all - that her name is Johanna Kaschke, who made the journey from Labour to the Tories via Tower Hamlets Respect and one (as yet not definitively identified) Communist Party, all in the space of a year.
I can also tell you that one of the things she is complaining about in her statement of claim against me is a comment you left on my blog. I’ll be hitting you for a witness statement, to the effect that you were simply giving your ‘honest opinion’, should the matter come to court.
It’s not time to launch a ‘Free the Osler One’ campaign just yet. I am mounting a defence of justification and fair comment, and like Alex, I am confident of victory.
But having to prepare legal documents and turn up at hearings is obviously a major league PITA. Bloggers beware.
Comment by David Osler — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
Thanks Dave,
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
BTW Dave, good luck to you as well with the libel defence
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Not very hard to work out who it is really … shouldn’t he be more discreet if he’s already in trouble?
Comment by RC — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Also I don’t really understand what’s being said here - does this site not agree with people who feel they’ve been libelled taking action in court?
Comment by RC — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
RC, are you really saying that you think it’s right that people use the libel laws to close down blogs and get them to handover tonns of cash that they don’t have?
Comment by Ed D — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Wow
Just read up the case on the internet.
Have the Tories gone mad? This in the hands of the right spin dr could do them serious amounts of damage. How can they be so stupid.
Good luck by the way Dave I’m sure you won’t need it
Comment by Vengence of History — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
It is very VERY dangerous to say anything about this woman at all. Google her and you will find out all you need to know about her.
We really do need to come together to protect Alex.
Comment by David T — 2 December, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
I think there does need to be some legal protection against defamation, but clearly the English law is a disastrous failure.
Look at how Jeffrey Archer was able to become untouchable by the press through winning huge damages by perjury, which left the mainstreamm media with the impression that anything they printed about him, even if true and fair comment, would be met with a huge financial pay-out.
On the other hand, the tabloids are able to run witch hunts and pillory ordinary people without compunction.
The essence of this is that Libel shuld be a shield and not a sword, people should be able to defend their reputations like George galloway does; but they should not be able to use libel to close down non-conformist voices like ITN did with LM.
There has been some good news on this recently, that comments on a blog should be treated as slander not libel - which is much harder to prove. http://www.simkins.co.uk/ebulletins/lerSlandernotLibel.aspx
But the type of blog that Dave Osler, David T and I run would all be regarded as on-line journalism - and the main articles would be subject to libel law.
Generally the law is still a mess following Godfrey v Demon.
I am - for obvious reasons -not going to comment on facts behind the cases involving Alex and Dave, except to wish them luck
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
The libel laws are the ‘rich man’s’ law as they protect the powerful and silence the powerless.
And yeah, good luck to Dave and Alex
Comment by Louise — 2 December, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Yeah, me neither
But we should try to organise a blog fundraiser
We should - generally - try to set up some form of mutual insurance between blogs. Perhaps using advertising to fund a legal expenses fund…
Comment by David T — 2 December, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
“Any contribution will be gratefully received.”
Done. I encourage everyone to do likewise.
“The essence of this is that Libel shuld be a shield and not a sword, people should be able to defend their reputations like George galloway does; but they should not be able to use libel to close down non-conformist voices like ITN did with LM.”
Ah, that’d be like the Brass Eye “Good AIDS vs Bad AIDS” sketch then.
Comment by Dustin the Turkey — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
#8 David T. “It is very VERY dangerous to say anything about this woman at all. Google her and you will find out all you need to know about her.
We really do need to come together to protect Alex.”
What’s her name then?
We live in dangerous times and we should all ‘moderate’ our lanquage…. but remain courageous in pursuit of the truth.
Comment by mark anthony france — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
It is in the post.
Comment by David T — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
#13
What’s her name then?
Johanna Kaschke
It says above in the original article
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
“that’d be like the Brass Eye “Good AIDS vs Bad AIDS” sketch then”
No, the law is curently imbalanced, so it is difficult to find easy examples.
But libel laws should seek to protect people from deliberate and malicious damage to their reputation but not allow people to vexatiously seek to put publications out of business just becasue they don’t like them.
the law could be redrafted in order to protect the less powerful from the more powerful, while still discouraging vexatious actions.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
My ideal libel law uses a right to reply, rather than damages, as a remedy.
If somebody thinks I’ve been unfair about them - and aren’t completely taking the piss - I’ll always allow them to explain why I’m wrong. I encourage it. There are two sides to every story.
That in fact was done in this case. But to no avail.
The sad truth is, if somebody really wants to sue you, they can toddle on down to the High Court, and launch a claim. Thereafter, you’re bogged down in months and months of expensive and timewasting legal proceedings.
Comment by David T — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
#17
David, the trouble with just relying on a right to reply, is that it can still be vexatiously abused.
To take the example of a left wing politician, of a Muslim background. Every time her name was mentioned an obsessive could make unfounded claims that she is a jihadi, thus involving her and her supporters in a tedious grind of going over and over again why these claims are unfounded. Of course, some people may falsely conclude there is no smoke wothout fire.
Sadly, it is hard to see how even an amended law could deal with that sort of cyber-stalking by an obsessive.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
any relationship between Johanna Kaschke and Tanja Krienen?
Comment by Entdinglichung — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
#20
I don’t know who Tanja Krienen is, and I don’t want any comment or speculation at all about Johanna Kaschke.
We don’t want to extend the bounds of these libel actions any further.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
I think it would outrageous for somebody to make an unfounded claim like that, without providing a link to source material that showed that it was so, so that the reader could reach their own conclusions as to the accuracy of the characterisation.
Salma Yaqoob can deny that she’s a supporter of jihadist politics, but then she’d have to explain why she urges recognition of the “right to resist” in Afghanistan, where the only people doing the “resisting” are the Taliban.
Politicians really come into a class of their own.
For example, I really do not think that George Galloway is anti-semitic. I’m certain that he doesn’t think of himself as such, and would be horrified to be characterised as an anti-semite. When people claim that he is, I always argue against it. In fact, I’ve seen him challenge certain anti-semitic theories: in particular, the notion that Israel runs the US.
However, he does work happily alongside, and appear on platforms with, people who are anti-semites. He strongly supports certain movements which are open about their desire to commit genocide against Jews, and who launch attacks against civilians.
Now, I do not think he does so because he is an anti-semite. However, in a free and open society, it must be possible for people to debate the possibility that he is, in fact, a Jew hater.
This is so, particularly, because he is a politician.
Similarly, I would only very reluctantly take action against the many people in Islamist, extreme-Left and extreme-Right groups who call me an Islamophobe or Israel Firster, although this is clearly defamatory.
The reasons that I’d hate to sue, is
- I put my ideas into the public arena and expect them to be engaged with; and
- because it absolutely contradicts any commitment to free and open debate.
You can’t argue with people who might sue you.
This is why I think it is a disgrace for anybody in public life - with access to a pulpit - to sue, rather than to argue.
Comment by David T — 2 December, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Rory/Andy: re. no. 18:
for ’some reason’ I suspect that that comment would justify (to the person concerned) the filing of libel proceedings. Or perhaps it has already? Remember: nothing you post on the internet is anonymous…
Comment by As anonymous as possible for reasons some posters will know — 2 December, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
Rory/Andy: re. no. 18:
for ’some reason’ I suspect that that comment would justify (to the person concerned) the filing of libel proceedings against you both. Or perhaps they’ve been filed already? Remember: nothing you post on the internet is truly anonymous…
Comment by As anonymous as possible for reasons some posters will know — 2 December, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
And for that reason, I recommend, to be honest, removing Rory’s comment and closing the thread.
Tanja Krienen (a transexual German journalist and blogger) has nothing to do with this case in any way whatsoever; she sued another German journalist, one Henryk M. Broder (who is famous for suing his critics himself) for insulting her and repeatingly describing her as a “man” and “him”. Krienen won. But as I said, no relevance whatsoever.
Comment by As anonymous as possible for reasons some posters will know — 2 December, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
comment #18 has now been deleted.
Comment by Andy Newman — 2 December, 2008 @ 7:13 pm