Tweet
There's a reason why celebrities go to the UK to sue newspapers for defamation. We have the craziest laws in the world for this.
I remember a story, I want to say it's that curly haired guy from the band queen. There was a story in the newspaper that he was gay, and he sued the newspaper on the grounds that he had previously denied being gay and so it made him out to be a liar. He won.. and only a few years later it came out that he was gay
There are so many crazy stories where the allegation is totally true but the defamation suit is based on loss of potential earnings etc. again fair grounds to sue on. That's why you'll hear people in the media, when they give controversial statements say "it's my opinion that..."
Because under 'fair comment' law you can pretty much say whatever you want as long as you say it's an opinion and not present it as a fact. There are loads of these funny little things.
I suspect the article says Whyte 'failed a drug test' which is not true and therefore he can sue quite easily anyway.
I remember a story, I want to say it's that curly haired guy from the band queen. There was a story in the newspaper that he was gay, and he sued the newspaper on the grounds that he had previously denied being gay and so it made him out to be a liar. He won.. and only a few years later it came out that he was gay
There are so many crazy stories where the allegation is totally true but the defamation suit is based on loss of potential earnings etc. again fair grounds to sue on. That's why you'll hear people in the media, when they give controversial statements say "it's my opinion that..."
Because under 'fair comment' law you can pretty much say whatever you want as long as you say it's an opinion and not present it as a fact. There are loads of these funny little things.
I suspect the article says Whyte 'failed a drug test' which is not true and therefore he can sue quite easily anyway.
English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable and unrecognizable by U.S. courts if they don't comply with U.S. protections for freedom of speech and due process, and was made largely in response to the English laws.[4]
The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]
The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]
The article does mention libel tourism and the like but also seems to indicate that UK law has been tightened from 2014 onwards to bring ot more in line with international - or more specifically US - law, and that US laws were modified in 2010 to combat litigation tourism by US citizens coming to the UK.
Still, one can only assume that Whyte will be acting on advice given by his lawyers so I'd have to expect there's more to it than that, I'd like to assume they'd only bring the case if they thought there was a reasonable chance of success.
Comment