Since one of the guiding principles of the US these days is bringing freedom and democracy to other countries, with so many stories about surveillance and things like this, perhaps it’s time to invade Britain.
A national disgrace, a global menace, and a pre-democratic anachronism
On the website of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, you can read a letter his publishers have received from the law firm Schillings. It contains something I have never seen before: a threatened injunction against a book they haven’t read and that won’t be published until September. Acting on behalf of the “private security contractor” Tim Spicer, Schillings gave the publishers three days (the deadline was last Friday) to guarantee that the book does not defame its client, or face “an injunction to restrain publication”.
[…]
Perhaps you don’t live in England or Wales, so you think this has nothing to do with you. You’re wrong. English libel law now applies to everyone on Earth. Make any accusation, anywhere in the world, and if the subject can demonstrate that a single person in England or Wales has read it, you could be sued here for every penny, cent, rouble, rupee or renminbi you possess. The internet and the global nature of publishing ensure that these medieval laws have become the most powerful extra-territorial legislation ever drafted.Yesterday two men with whom I seldom agree, the US senators Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman, launched a new bill, called the Free Speech Protection Act, to defend US citizens against English libel law. Our laws, they argue, threaten the “free-flowing marketplace of ideas” which “enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al-Qaida and other terrorist organisations”. English libel law is an international menace, a national disgrace, a pre-democratic anachronism. It defends crooks, terrorists and tyrants from investigation. It threatens the free speech of people all over the world and causes untold damage to the reputation of this country. And neither the British government nor the British parliament gives a damn.
This is an interesting issue regarding globalization. Its easy to think Russia or China or North Korea have idiot laws to protect the powerful and avoid democratic free speech that could lead to corrections, but Mother England? Shocking!!
Well, England has its laws according to its procedures. If you violate them, whatever assets you have in England can be seized to pay court authorized fines and damages. What in the world is wrong with that?
If you disagree with the laws of England, then pay off some members of Parliament to get them changed. Don’t you understand how democracy works?
Good for a laugh.
I’d rather invade Iran…
Ah Yea==I’ve heard several experts now say we can’t invade Iran without upsetting the worlds oil market–even including the USA.
That doesn’t make much sense to me. Seems to me Cheney already got rich once by going to war with Iraq.
All the USA/Cheney/Oil Barons need to do is buy Oil Futures at any given price, then invade Iran==seems to me that every country without futures contracts would bet screwed and NOT THE USA? A win from 4-5 perspectives?
The old joke about how to get rich was: “Invest a million dollars in a growth industry.” Now its: “Control an Army and invade a Backwards Country with Oil.”
I’m sure there have been several fictional accounts of this already written. Good thing Bush doesn’t read and Cheney is busy counting his money.
Why are you guys so intent on letting Msulims be bashed inprint?
This actually isn’t even close to the first time this kind of thing happened. There was a case between Lennix Lewis’s agent and Don King. If I remember correctly (which is anyone’s guess) Don King (at the time a resident of FL) allegedly made an anti-semetic statement directed at Lewis’s agent (at the time a resident of NJ). The statement was allegedly made in NY. The agent went home and posted about the incident on a message board.
King knew he would lose under US laws (which favor freedom over privacy/image concerns), but it was determined he’d win in the UK (which flips them around).
Don King sued the agent for defamation in UK and won. He was entitled to damages done to his reputation in the UK.
In the UK you can only collect for damage done to your UK reputation. In the US you can only sue for comments made in the US or substantially directed at the US (oversimplification), but you can collect ‘universal’ damage to your reputation (meaning everywhere the world over).
Defamation law rocks.
Australia and Canada also have similar liable laws. That whole Mclean thing in Vancouver is is the exact same crap. Someone took offense over what someone else wrote and now can sue.
Yea, Bobbo. There is no money in invading England. All we could hope for is some tea and crumpets.
Now if you want to make more money than Bill Gates, buy up all the oil futures and invade Iran. That would drive the price of oil futures through the roof and make you an instant multi-billionaire.
The sad part is, I’m not joking.
#8 This is old hat. It was just done in Iraq… 🙂
To expound on my previous post. Bobbo and I both see that if we invade Iran (or threaten, or if Israel does anything, etc.) that the oil futures will go sky high.
Someone would make grundles of money from this, and if it is true that banks have been using cheap money from the fed and using that money to leverage oil futures…
Here is the scenario. There is pressure to reduce the price of oil by increasing supply. If it is true that banks own high-priced futures (which does have to be paid at some time), then the banks would be looking at astronomical losses which could devastate the banking industry.
http://tinyurl.com/6p8qw9
Money talks. The banks have enormous clout with the government. Does it seem too far fetched that the banks could convince the government to do some saber rattling just to drive up the price of oil so the banks can get out of their futures without taking a bath?
iSNT THIS pre-EMPTIVE legislation.
thats no legal.
You CANT sue until something is said/read/done…
you cant restrict, until its OVER/DONE.
the only exceptions are those mentally deficient.
@11 ECA
Preemptive censorship is lawful in the States, for matters of national security and in matters when it is determined that a large copyright violation is going to happen. (Easier for the first than the second).
It is probably even easier to get in Europe, they generally have less free speech protections.
So we can’t extradite a murderer from some country that protects fugitives who happen to reside there. But it they insult somebody in england, oh yeah, that they can be taken to court for. Does this make any sense whatsoever? Seems to me the legal priorities are way out of wack! When murder is way down on the list, and slander is at the top (because it crosses all national boundries, that a murder charge doesn’t). So I quess if you want to get somebody to appear in your english court for a murder charge, and they’re in another country that doesn’t have extradition to the UK. Change the charge to slander instead, and they’ll have to answer for it. Is that how it works?! Yeah, I’ll just bet they’ll be exceptions for the rich and politically connected, as usual. All this is going to do is piss everyone off at the English people, for allowing such a law. Do they really want to take America’s place as “the great UK satan” or “ugly brits”?
Now that I think of it, I’ll just bet that the scientologists in the UK had something to do with enacting this law. They’re the most sue-happy concern in the whole world. When South Park did that episode mocking the “church”. Their cartoon version of Cruise said that he’d “sue Stan in England”. I didn’t know why they had him saying that then, but now it makes sense. I wouldn’t surprise me if they’ve already used the UK courts to their advantage, quite often. In their eyes, revealing anything about their methods, or members, could be contrived as slanderous. Whereas in the US, they probably just exploit the copyright laws.
#10, they could just sell their futures now!
Fools say I !!!
Anyone may send anyone else a letter threatening to sue or whatever unless a specific action is taken. There is nothing illegal in that. That does not give the sender any special rights or claims. The receiver, in this case the publisher, can ignore the letter, meet and try to find a middle acceptable ground, or fully comply. The person suing still has the onus on proving their case.
As far as suing someone in a different country, you are still required to prove jurisdiction and service. Here, the publisher, as well as the defendant, are citizens of Britain. If they wanted to sue me, who has never been to Britain, they would still need to find some British connection such as a publisher or property I might own before a British Court could find jurisdiction.
I really do laugh when I read all the nimrods that get their shorts in a knot and start spouting rabid nonsense. Similar laws are currently applicable in all American jurisdictions I know of.