Steam Engine Society Forced To Sell Steam Engine Because 13 Photographers Might Have (But Probably Didn't) See Article
from the time-for-reform dept
In our recent post concerning the attempt by the UK to reform its ridiculous defamation laws (finally), Ben pointed out a perfect example of why those libel laws need fixing. Apparently a volunteer society focused on preserving a specific train steam engine (the 6024) was forced to sell its carefully restored steam engine thanks to a highly questionable libel suit from the society's former chair, who was ousted in a dispute. The Society's newsletter, which goes almost entirely to society members, discussed the dispute with the former chair and that guy sued claiming libel. The Society pointed out that the newsletter only went to other society members and the court initially agreed. However, the former chairman pointed out that the newsletter was also sent out to a grand total of 13 photographers whose images appeared in the newsletter, but who were not members of the society. And the court found that because those 13 people might have read the article (even though no evidence was presented suggesting they did), that the libel charge was valid. So now, the Society had to sell off the engine that it had restored just to pay for the legal costs of defending itself... because 13 people might have (but probably didn't) see the article in question.
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: defamation, libel, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Off with his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off with his head.
I'm sure that an apology would have been a lot less costly...
The '13' is a red-herring, the society was trying to use the 'only 400' as a legal reason for not being considered for libel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Off with his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Off with his head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Atlas Shrugged
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well said - they couldn't have done a better job in the end.
And even more so if you read the source article:
"Unfortunately, there was also a report about a dispute between the society and its former chairman, Steve Underhill, who was forced out in October 2007 after other members alleged that he had been paid for work on the locomotive which he should have done for nothing."
I guess he was just in it for the $$$ coming and going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
13 is just a number. It could have been 1, it could have been 1 million. All it did was establish circulation outside of a private group.
The reality is that a man who gave his life to a cause was attacked unfairly, with nothing to back it up, and sued for damages as a result. Because the society wasn't smart enough as a group to check their newsletter before it went out, they bare responsiblity for their actions.
Congrats to TD for once again ignoring the forest and focusing on a blade of grass. A total fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Playing the victim's always easier, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The victim is a victim, don't make it try to sound otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If he was attacked unfairly, then why does it matter whether it was within a private group or not?
I could see if it was available to the general public, or to any large number of people, but to say 400 is not enough to be libel, and 413 is?
AFAIK, there's no hard law saying that 401 or more people have to have possibly seen an article for it to be defamation.
Further, we have the issue with the idea of a private group over a public group; why does including 13 photographers make it a non-private group?
Couldn't it be considered the group of society members, and the group of photographers who took pictures for them? Neither of those seem non-private to me.
That he WAS attacked unfairly, I'll take, because the courts did decide he should win the case. That's not what I'm arguing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contractual obligations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contractual obligations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It would be one thing if it wa sprinted and never delivered to a single person. However, it was delivered to society members as well as photographers not associated as members of the society.
In the end, the society should have been more careful about what they were publishing and they should be held accountable for their remarks. In this country, you cannot slander anyone, unless you can prove it. This is why people file slander-based lawsuits are filed all of the time, in the U.S.
Sounds like they're going to lose the lawsuit because if they had to sell the steam engine to pay for their defense, then, it means that this lawsuit is going to bankrupt them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure how much of a condemnation this is of the UK's "ridiculous defamation laws", when it isn't clear to me that this exact same situation couldn't have arisen in any other jurisdiction with defamation law, including the US. CDA 230 wouldn't apply here, and not aware of a requirement under US law to prove that a publication or a defamatory statement was actually read (outside of instances where this was needed to establish jurisdiction). That said, I'm not a US attorney...
So, this appears to be more of a condemnation of defamation law in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oublication
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is not what defines slander.
Slander deals with the actual intent that publishing said article would create. If "one" person reads the article, it's slander, no matter the kind of "spin" you try to put it through.
Wikipedia defines Slander (or Defamation) as "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)."
This is slander. Fact is, that the society would have never been the subject of a lawsuit if they hadn't published the article. The minute they published the article, they slandered this man. The article doesn't even have to read by a single person, to prove slander, all one needs is a copy of the published article by the organization who published it.
Their whole basis is that they shouldn't be sued because the general public didn't read it is totally false. That isn't a valid argument in trying to get the lawsuit dismissed.
IN the end, the society is going to lose the lawsuit because they should have realized that it was a slanderous article. I'm just surprised that they didn't consult an attorney before posting that article since it concerned a person that they "ousted" in a dispute. Common sense should have told them to protect themselves before they approved the article for publication.
Instead, they rpobably didn't consult an attorney and because of the animosity between the "former chairperson" and the society, they should have realized that he would be looking for any reason to sue the society, since they removed him from his position within the society.
Claiming "qualified privilege" is a load of crap because the only people who can claim "privilege" are attorney's, anyone in the medical profession, and spouses (wife/husband). The society simply cannot claim privilege, even if being a member in the society has that written into their guidelines. The only thing that would do is force the removal of that member from the society for divulging the newsletter.
However, in this case, the newsletter was distributed to photographers, who were not even members of the society so they wouldn't even be able to claim privilege, even if the courts allowed it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oublication
Sorry, I misspelt "publication" in my subject line.
Under British libel law there is a qualified privilege under some circumstances that will protect statements that are defamatory. Indeed one of the articles linked to refers to this when it said "Lawyers for the 6024 Society argued in court that the journal, with a circulation of just 400 copies, was covered by legal privilege because it is only read by members of the society. This argument was accepted by the court."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, the "former chairperson," does not need to prove to prove that anyone read it. The only thing he needs to prove is that they published it. The society, by publishing the article in the newsletter, showed intent to inflict injury upon the man's reputation, by painting an image of the man in a negative light.
It is not necessary to prove whether someone read the article, or not. To prove the basis of defamation, the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant (the Society) intended to paint a negative picture of the plaintiff through the article. The fact is, that the society made a big mistake by approving that article for publishing, which the editors for the newsletter should never had approved, in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure this is true. Quite frequently in defamation cases, we see the number of people who likely would have seen the story used as a test to see whether or not the act was really defamatory. I've seen cases thrown out that involve a very small number of people actually seeing the content. But, again, there may be some peculiar points having to do with UK law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to Wiki:
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. First, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps and they must also prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's false, and your own quote shows it.
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. First, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement.
See the "caused harm" part. That only happens if people read it and believed it and took action on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 things
2) Damages of £7,000, costs of £335,000. If that doesn't illustrate how fucked up the legal profession is I don't know what does.
3) None of this changes the fact that the UK does have some totally screwed up libel laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]