Having the burden of proof on the defendant is a terrible idea. The imbalance in the UK libel system has given rise to libel tourism [1]. This is something the UK has been seeking to reform [2].
If you're a public figure or an organisation then we have to accept that some people are going to say some crazy things otherwise it would be too easy to use the courts to silence legitimate criticism.
As for Elsevier's package pricing strategy, it's interesting how similar this is to how cable companies price offerings.
In the case of cable companies (IMHO) we need structural separation between those that own the physical network and those that provide services on it. Around the world telecommunications policy is slowly heading in this direction in relation to the "last mile".
In the case of academic journals it seems academics are victims of themselves basically. Prestigious journals carry weight because academics give them weight. Promotions and continued employment sometimes revolve around getting published. At that point the academics are captive to those that provide those journals.
Previously distribution was a key problem. Now obviously it isn't. Some disciplines have taken a far more open approach to publication and peer review. This problem will probably be solved as more disciplines get organized and go their own way.
I don't exactly sympathize with the panicky rhetoric of the pamphlet that was about, but nothing in it comes anywhere close to the kind of thing libel law legitimately protects against, and it looks like stuff that would be perfectly legal to say in more reasonable jurisdictions like Holland or the US.
But yes, even more outrageous than English libel law (there's no such thing as "UK libel law," since Scots law is different) is this Libel tourism business.
I wonder what it would take to get this reformed. Any British people on here who have a better view of the local political climate? I somehow suspect that a push from local constituent carries more weight in British politics in today's climate than ECHR judgments like the one in the McLibel case. Is there anyone strongly pushing for these strict laws, or is it just a case of inertia combined with nobody pushing very hard against it?
Linked PDF is an 'article' in "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals" titled "Photo Gallery", which is exactly what the title suggests: a gallery of photos of El Naschie with colleagues, photos of El Naschie on vacation, and one screenshot of a web page.
give a lot more background on the details of this particular case, and on which defenses to libel claims are available under British law. Proposals for legal reform in Britain are also discussed at those links.
"By introducing a space-time which is not only four-dimensional but also infinite-dimensional, and by using hyperbolic random fractals, I was able to precisely model this stormy ocean in which relativity and quantum mechanics can live side by side."
Great news, but I wished the article went into more detail about the original lawsuit and the strategy used to win the case.
To me, the big story in all of this is Elsevier’s "package sales strategy". They are a much bigger foe, so accusing them of wrong doings directly would be a much bigger fight. Their dominance in the industry will hopefully soon evaporate.
Yes -- if it weren't for the package sales strategy, this loser with his own journal would be writing for no one but himself (and I'm sure Elsevier wouldn't pay him to do that).
This is a great example of how Elsevier uses its position in the industry to extract money from universities far out of proportion to the value they provide. I hope academia gets fed up with this soon and stops paying.
In 1817, William Hone, a satirist, defended himself against multiple charges under Britain's then-antiquated libel laws. He won, despite all odds. Read Ben Wilson's recent "The Laughter of Triumph: William Hone and the Fight for the Free Press" for more.
What boggles my mind, what truly causes me little conniptions, is that even after supposed reform of the various UK libel laws, they are still used today to silence one's opponents. IANAL, etc., but these laws do seem, uh, heavy handed and unfair, arming the slighted with fully automatic sledgehammer launchers to use against any foe, real or perceived.
Another case that HN'ers may be familiar with is that of Simon Singh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh Its a joy to read his books and he hangs out on HN at times too.
For another case of sanity reigning supreme after an English libel law suit, there's Simon Singh's victory against the British Chiropractic Association, after an article he wrote in the Guardian:
I'm a big fan of the English libel law; to my mind, if you write something about someone, you should bear responsibility for ensuring that what you write is true, and have the proof to back it up.
Placing the responsibility on the person you're writing about seems just plain unfair to me.
The only problem with the English libel laws is it takes so long to resolve a case. I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense, and would prefer this aspect to be fixed first - if at all possible.
You may not be aware that the truth is not an absolute defence against libel under English law. Not only do you have to prove what you wrote was true, you also have to prove it was in the public interest to publish it.
If everyone had to prove that what they said was absolutely true before saying anything then nothing would get said as it is almost impossible to prove a positive.
[+] [-] cletus|13 years ago|reply
If you're a public figure or an organisation then we have to accept that some people are going to say some crazy things otherwise it would be too easy to use the courts to silence legitimate criticism.
As for Elsevier's package pricing strategy, it's interesting how similar this is to how cable companies price offerings.
In the case of cable companies (IMHO) we need structural separation between those that own the physical network and those that provide services on it. Around the world telecommunications policy is slowly heading in this direction in relation to the "last mile".
In the case of academic journals it seems academics are victims of themselves basically. Prestigious journals carry weight because academics give them weight. Promotions and continued employment sometimes revolve around getting published. At that point the academics are captive to those that provide those journals.
Previously distribution was a key problem. Now obviously it isn't. Some disciplines have taken a far more open approach to publication and peer review. This problem will probably be solved as more disciplines get organized and go their own way.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
[2]: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8379196...
[+] [-] weel|13 years ago|reply
I don't exactly sympathize with the panicky rhetoric of the pamphlet that was about, but nothing in it comes anywhere close to the kind of thing libel law legitimately protects against, and it looks like stuff that would be perfectly legal to say in more reasonable jurisdictions like Holland or the US.
But yes, even more outrageous than English libel law (there's no such thing as "UK libel law," since Scots law is different) is this Libel tourism business.
I wonder what it would take to get this reformed. Any British people on here who have a better view of the local political climate? I somehow suspect that a push from local constituent carries more weight in British politics in today's climate than ECHR judgments like the one in the McLibel case. Is there anyone strongly pushing for these strict laws, or is it just a case of inertia combined with nobody pushing very hard against it?
[+] [-] raphman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duskwuff|13 years ago|reply
Truly a pioneering piece of research, this.
[+] [-] tokenadult|13 years ago|reply
http://www.nature.com/news/libel-win-reveals-need-for-reform...
and the accompanying Nature editorial
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/487139a...
give a lot more background on the details of this particular case, and on which defenses to libel claims are available under British law. Proposals for legal reform in Britain are also discussed at those links.
[+] [-] powertower|13 years ago|reply
Being curious about his theories, I've located this...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohamed_El_Naschie
Which brought me to this...
"E-infinity theory"
"By introducing a space-time which is not only four-dimensional but also infinite-dimensional, and by using hyperbolic random fractals, I was able to precisely model this stormy ocean in which relativity and quantum mechanics can live side by side."
[+] [-] donretag|13 years ago|reply
To me, the big story in all of this is Elsevier’s "package sales strategy". They are a much bigger foe, so accusing them of wrong doings directly would be a much bigger fight. Their dominance in the industry will hopefully soon evaporate.
[+] [-] impendia|13 years ago|reply
http://www.thecostofknowledge.com/
[+] [-] ScottBurson|13 years ago|reply
This is a great example of how Elsevier uses its position in the industry to extract money from universities far out of proportion to the value they provide. I hope academia gets fed up with this soon and stops paying.
[+] [-] danielweber|13 years ago|reply
In America the burden is on the person being defamed to prove his case, including that the stated facts are unjust.
We have a lot of crazies here saying crazy things. It's wonderful.
[+] [-] excuse-me|13 years ago|reply
So if I say you are a child molester - you have to prove that you aren't !
How exactly were you intending to do that?
[+] [-] PeterWhittaker|13 years ago|reply
In 1817, William Hone, a satirist, defended himself against multiple charges under Britain's then-antiquated libel laws. He won, despite all odds. Read Ben Wilson's recent "The Laughter of Triumph: William Hone and the Fight for the Free Press" for more.
What boggles my mind, what truly causes me little conniptions, is that even after supposed reform of the various UK libel laws, they are still used today to silence one's opponents. IANAL, etc., but these laws do seem, uh, heavy handed and unfair, arming the slighted with fully automatic sledgehammer launchers to use against any foe, real or perceived.
[+] [-] srean|13 years ago|reply
Why UK libel laws must change:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/16/qa-with-simon...
Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/mf_qa_singh/
[+] [-] jschuur|13 years ago|reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-li... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/libel-la...
See also: http://www.libelreform.org
[+] [-] excuse-me|13 years ago|reply
And since it never went to trial, there is nothing to stop them suing him again tomorrow, or picking on a less well defended or less public figure.
[+] [-] mootothemax|13 years ago|reply
Placing the responsibility on the person you're writing about seems just plain unfair to me.
The only problem with the English libel laws is it takes so long to resolve a case. I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense, and would prefer this aspect to be fixed first - if at all possible.
[+] [-] rm445|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Symmetry|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genwin|13 years ago|reply
The legal system is a highly profitable industry. It's why obvious frivolous lawsuits can go to trial.
[+] [-] ktizo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zenst|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jpiasetz|13 years ago|reply