New Libel Law Proposed In The UK; Gives ISPs Two Weeks To Respond
from the a-fortnight? dept
It's no secret that the UK's defamation laws are extremely problematic. They've longed been used for "libel tourism" as well as to silence critics. There's been a lot of talk in the UK about fixing those issues, but little action. Now it appears that a new libel bill has been introduced that, among other things, will give ISPs a 14-day window to respond to claims of libel. This seems sort of half-way between the typical "notice-and-takedown" and "notice-and-notice" proposals we've seen elsewhere. A two week window could actually give an ISP the chance to get a response or a challenge from the creator of the content before taking it down. However, not surprisingly, some are claiming this window is way too long, and ISPs should be forced to take down any content that is called libelous.The bill does have many good aspects, including a defense for "responsible publication on matters of public interest," but appears to leave out a lot of important things as well, including shifting the burden of proof from the accused to the accuser. It's hard to believe that anyone, in this day and age, could possibly still have a libel law that puts the burden on the accused to prove they didn't libel someone. It's too bad that the UK doesn't appear ready to fix that glaring problem just yet.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: burden, defamation, libel, libel tourism, safe harbors, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Injunctions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Injunctions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Injunctions
ISPs will invariably feel pressured to make decisions and it is unfair to put that burden on them.
I don't see why a plaintiff shouldn't have to apply to a court for an interlocutory judgement of some kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's hard to believe that anyone, in this day and age, could possibly still have a libel law that puts the burden on the accused to prove they didn't libel someone." - only one person is making the speech, they are the only ones who can control it. are you proposing a nanny state where we can say anything we want, do anything we want, and then just take it back in 13.9 days and say "oops, sorry"? if you make the speech, you are responsible for it, end of discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point of a more liberal notice-and-take-down statute is to give intermediaries like the ISP more time to decide whether or not a message they DID NOT originally create is in fact libelous.
By way of analogy, suppose someone publishes a possibly libelous book. You then go into a bookstore owned by someone else and say, "That book is libel! Burn it right now!" The bookstore owner then says, "Hold on here. I have no idea who you are or if your claim of libel is true. Please give me 14 days to verify this." Is that so wrong? You can quibble about whether 14 days is too long in "Internet time", but the basic principle is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
remember, this isnt to stop the speech from ever happening, just allowing for a sober second though outside of the publics eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"A two week window could actually give an ISP the chance to get a response or a challenge from the creator of the content before taking it down."
At no point is it stated that the remarks/article MUST stay up for 14 days.
You can still get an injunction to have it taken down prior to that time if it is so bad.
The ISP can remove it at their own discretion if they support your claim.
However, if your claim is flimsy then they can keep the material online to allow a rebuttal.
That way the ISP isn't being hammered from both sides and free-speech remains untainted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If so where does the burden of proof lie then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another "law" written for tyranny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which accused?
When you libel someone (eg. "Mike is a crook"), the accused is really the person being libeled, not the libeler. It should be up to the accuser (i.e. the potential libeler) to prove their accusations. If they can't prove them, they are guilty of libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which accused?
By the way, the US gov't is now moving against whistle-blowers and others who simply tell the *truth* about what it's doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like one of these needs to change. I think the first one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]