Censorship kills

Thanks to Charlie Beckett who draws my attention to the defamation map.

It comes courtesy of Article 19,the global campaign for freedom of expression which

fights for all hostages of censorship, defends dissenting voices that have been muzzled, and campaigns against laws and practices that silence.

Twitterer to be sued

I am sure that there will be much debate about the ownership of comments on twitter but maybe this case reported by the BBC from Chicago may have some bearing on future policy.

A tenant who used the micro-blogging service Twitter to complain about mould in her Chicago apartment is being sued.

According to the report

Horizon Group Management filed a lawsuit that has accused Amanda Bonnen of defaming the company with her tweet.
She sent out a message that said "Who said sleeping in a mouldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay."

CFA's may be in defiance of European convention

Guardian media reports that the high cost of the so called conditional fee agreements is reducing newspapers ability to uphold their position as the fourth estate.

The paper cites the verdict of an Oxford University study that

the use of conditional fee agreements – which enable lawyers to take libel cases against newspapers on a no win, no fee basis – is leaving newspapers "shackled" and unable to act as public watchdogs.

Apart from that the study commissioned by the Daily Mail believes that

use of CFAs potentially contravened articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in defamation and privacy cases.

A change in the defamation laws on the way

Mike Smithson has had a tip off that may well effect bloggers and blogging.

He understands that

a green paper will be published in the New Year setting out plans to make it easier for people to sue for defamation. The idea is to cut down the disproportionate costs of bringing a libel action and there’s even a suggestion that there could be a small claims court for libel.
The move is bound to be seen as a way of dealing with government irritants such as Guido and to a lesser extent Iain Dale.

Gangmaster sues Guardian

We are currently writing an essay in our law module on the reasons why libel cases have fallen off in recent years,the title suggests that it may be due to the Reynolds defence.

I was therefore interested to see Press Gazette reporting this morning that the gangmaster Andris Tiltnieks has launched a £3.7 million libel claim against the publishers of The Guardian.


He has issued the writ in person without the backing of a legal team.It concerns an article back in 2006 which alleged that his company

illegally employed and exploited Bulgarian workers, who were forced to live like pigs on scraps, scavenging vegetables from fields where they worked, and were housed in dirty caravans. The story also claimed that workers had not been paid for 34 days, and that Baltic Work Team had its gangmaster licence revoked for abuses of employment law.

Will the paper claim the public interest defence?

But it is only my personal opinion

Nearly a year ago I wrote on this blog about the Irish times which was fined £25,000 for publishing a bad restuarant review

Well the paper is to appeal agianst the ruling and for Giles Coren writing in today's Times it is not a day too soon who following the ruling

Suddenly, now I was having weekly conversations with the Times lawyers that went something like this: “You claim in your article that the tiramisu tastes of vole's vomit/ mouse poo/ the contents of a country vet's turn-ups at the end of a long hot day artificially inseminating pigs...”

but now must say

'In my personal opinion, based on previous eatings of tiramisu on diverse premises on independently verifiable occasions, I have formed the subjective notion that this tiramisu tasted “unusual”. But that's only me. And other people may find otherwise. After all, de gustibus nil disputandum, and all that'.”

On defamation

Caroline Kean at Press Gazette writes a good piece on Morrisey's case for defamation against the New Musical Express.


For students of journalism,she gives a good synopsis of the case and the legal arguments that may come up.

Bearing in mind that the alleged defamation was carried out in an interview,Caroline says

Consent is a classic defence to a claim in defamation. If an interviewee makes derogatory statements about themselves, the interviewer is entitled to publish these. So does Morrissey have a claim?
The defence of consent by implication refers to informed consent. It would not be a defence to a claim in defamation to show that the answer to a question had been reported accurately, if the question to which that answer was given was fundamentally different to the one published.