24 Feb 11 | Uncategorized
An attempt to sue a Ukrainian newspaper for libel in London has been refused in the Royal Courts of Justice today.
Master Leslie allowed an appeal of the libel action against Public Media, publishers of the Kyiv Post. He declined to accept jurisdiction in the UK, saying that the claimant, Mr Firtash, had no substantial connection to the country.
“The claim form and service thereof shall be set aside and proceedings dismissed and declared that [the] court will not exercise any jurisdiction to try this claim,” he said.
Whereas Boris Berezovsky’s libel case had shown “real and substantial connections with this country” he saw “no such evidence in this case”.
While Master Leslie recognised the claimant’s right to access to justice, he said it had no place in the English courts and that the connections were “tenuous in the extreme”.
Firtash had no residence in the country, no active business pursuits and had “erroneously” cited a business colleague’s Knightsbridge address for the claim.
Leslie had seen no evidence to show his property or shares in this country, or information about the frequency of his visits to this country.
“There’s no evidence before me to show that there is any such business interest or floatation being planned,” he said. It was not, but “almost” an abuse of process, he said.
The defendant lawyer suggested the article had only been viewed 21 times from the UK. While Leslie refused to “play the numbers game” when assessing the extent of internet publication, he said “it was plain it [publication] was limited”.
Index on Censorship and the Libel Reform campaign welcomed today’s decision. Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said:
“This is obviously good news for free speech, but the libel chill still remains. This phenomenon of libel tourism is a form of legal harassment, which discourages responsible investigative journalists from speaking the truth to power.
“This is not a problem we can fix by tinkering with legal procedures: Parliament needs to overhaul our the entire system.”
Late last year, following the dispute, the Kyiv Post blocked all access to UK internet users to its website, “in protest of the draconian libel laws there that hinder legitimate free speech and threaten the work of independent journalists, authors, scientists and others worldwide.”
24 Feb 11 | Index Index, minipost, News and features
A judge ruled today that the High Court in London is not the best place to hear a libel dispute between billionaire Ukrainian businessman Dimitry Firtash and the Kyiv Post, a Ukrainian newspaper.
Whilst only 21 people downloaded the article about Firtash’s business practices in the UK, the libel action was pursued in London’s High Court.
Master Leslie threw the case out, saying the claimant’s connections to the UK were “tenuous in the extreme.” He added: “There is no substantial connection to this jurisdiction.”
The Libel Reform Campaign, as well as groups such as Article 19 and the Media Legal Defence Initiative, has long argued that wealthy claimants are using the High Court in London to stifle criticism of their behaviour overseas. In July 2010, President Obama signed into law legislation to protect US journalists, writers and publishers from “libel tourists” — litigants who sue Americans in foreign jurisdictions which place a lower emphasis on free speech.
Late last year, the Kyiv Post blocked access from Britain in protest at English defamation laws. Upon visting kyivpost.com visitors would instead be directed to a plain white page with this message:
“The Kyiv Post, effective Dec. 14, 2010, is blocking access to all web traffic originating from the United Kingdom in protest of the draconian libel laws there that hinder legitimate free speech and threaten the work of independent journalists, authors, scientists and others worldwide.”
Welcoming the ruling, Conservative MP Sir Peter Bottomley urged reform of England’s libel laws:
“Parliament should without delay make the law clear. The costs should be limited to half the estimate damage if the words are potentially untrue, damaging and not privileged. Additionally, the subject of the complaint should have a statute right to show that the UK is not the relevant court for one of a list of clear reasons. Also, the limit of costs and damages combined should not be higher than the number of listeners or readers multiplied by say 50 pence. Twenty readers creates the combined limit of ten pounds; two million copies might lead to a calculation of £1 million.”
15 Feb 11 | Uncategorized
Footballer and man David Beckham has had a libel claim rejected by a California court. Beckham claimed that celebrity gossip magazine In Touch had defamed him by reporting he had paid prostitute Irma Nici $10,000 for sex.
While the magazine’s publishers did not attempt to defend the truth of the claims, District Judge Manuel Real found that such a story was in the public interest (as Beckham is a public figure), and there was no evidence of malice in the magazine’s story, based on an interview with Nici.
Beckham’s lawyers have vowed to appeal the decision. Why he didn’t just sue in England, we’ll never know. Top US celeb sites National Inquirer and TMZ are both blocked in the UK, as their publishers fear the long reach of England’s infamous libel laws. At very least, Beckham would not have had to prove malice — not a requirement in English law. It would, however, be interesting to see if an English court would agree with District Judge Rael’s defintions of “public interest” and “public figure”.
Meanwhile, back on this sceptred isle, Press Gazette’s Grey Cardigan points us to a fantastic (and I mean that literally) “warning” sent by Shaun Robinson, PR man for United Utilities in Narnia, sorry, the north-west of England:
“LEGAL ADVISORY FROM UNITED UTILITIES: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.”
“This advisory relates to stories in today’s Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph and Daily Express, which are based on a false and inaccurate story on the Lancashire Telegraph website. The stories falsely assert that a hosepipe ban is expected in the North West; or that there are fears of one; or that one is imminent. All of these statements are entirely false and inaccurate.
“We would therefore advise you not to repeat the false claims of a hosepipe ban, without speaking to us first. To re-publish false and inaccurate information now that you are aware of the true facts would constitute a malicious falsehood under the laws of defamation.”
Now, Lord knows some dubious libel cases have come to trial in England. But malicious falsehood Shaun? Really?
01 Feb 11 | Uncategorized
Financial Times editor Lionel Barber’s Hugh Cudlipp Lecture, delivered last night, managed to fit the many and varied dilemmas facing the UK press into a short and entertaining speech.
It is pretty much accepted by anyone in possession of a press card that print media is in decline; but Barber points out that this a very much a western world phenomenon. In some markets, print is thriving:
These figures largely reflect a western disease: the virus has yet to strike the world’s biggest countries, China and India; and it is not true of many emerging countries such as Brazil, where the appetite for news in all forms is growing fast.
Since 2005, for example, the number of paid-for Indian daily newspaper titles has surged to 2,700, according to the World Association of Newspapers. The circulation of Hindi papers rose from less than 8m in the early 1990s to more than 25m last year. Meanwhile, the total circulation of Brazilian newspapers has expanded by 1m over the past decade to 8.2m, with steamy tabloids among the biggest beneficiaries.
Barber goes on to question why US and UK newspapers are suffering. Could it be because the press is a little too close to those it is meant to scrutinise?
In hindsight, Watergate was a curse as well as a blessing for American journalism. The courageous reporting of the Post and the New York Times – coupled with the favourable Supreme Court rulings on publication of the Pentagon Papers – were landmarks for the interpretation of First Amendment rights and the freedom of the press. But they also encouraged the cult of celebrity and media self-absorption.
In the words of Eric Alterman, as reporters became more sophisticated and respected, the top rank came to be regarded as the social equal of those people they were reporting on such as Senators and CEOs. Some came to identify more closely with their subjects rather than with their readers. In short, they joined the Establishment.
Does this apply to Britain?
[…]I believe we have entered our own period of media self-absorption, driven partly by our industry’s financial difficulties. Second, we have in recent years witnessed if not exactly a merger of the media and political class, certainly an increasingly intertwined relationship which, I suspect, does not necessarily serve the interest of either.
Today, many members of the political elite in Britain have all worked in or with the media industry. David Cameron worked in a commercial TV company. Jeremy Hunt ran a publishing business. Michael Gove was a newspaper columnist. Boris Johnson was a magazine editor (and still writes a weekly newspaper column). Ed Miliband was a TV researcher. And Ed Balls was an editorial writer for the FT.
This new social network in Britain may be more informal than formal, but it still comes across as far too cosy. Arguably, our elected representatives have become a tad too respectful toward broadcast and print media.
Many would argue that the web has broken up the influence of this network, with the exploits of Wikileaks in 2010 blowing traditional media out of the water. But Barber, quoting New York Times editor Bill Keller, questions this narrative:
Keller’s observation that Assange was primarily a source is highly pertinent. That plain fact should tamp down the fevered debate over whether WikiLeaks spells either the end of diplomacy or a new age of journalism. Like Keller, I believe it does neither.
Barber is also quite scathing on the News of the World phone-hacking scandal:
The suspicion must remain that News Corporation assumed that it enjoyed enough power and influence in Britain to make the phone hacking controversy go away.
Of interest to Index readers is this line, which will have to be borne in mind as the government’s defamation bill comes before parliament:
Many MPs are itching to retaliate for the humiliation of the expenses scandal, but statutory regulation would be a grave step in the wrong direction.
Press freedom is woven into the fabric of our nation. We do not want to go down the same road as countries such as Argentina, Hungary and South Africa which have adopted or are about to adopt new laws curbing press freedom. Democracy, it should be remembered, is not just about holding elections.
There is a case for rebalancing the right to privacy and the protections offered by Britain’s overly onerous libel laws which are weighted in favour of the well-heeled plaintiff. But Westminster should also tread carefully with regard to privacy, lest the rich and famous, on and off the football field, become untouchable.
READ THE FULL TEXT HERE
