In 2011 the UK still had our old defamation laws - they were changed in 2013. So it would have been really easy for him to both sue and win a defamation case. The Guardian would have had to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he had said those things.
UK libel laws aren't that bad for situations like this — if he were sued in the UK, he could rely on the defence of honest opinion and I imagine he would prevail.
Defamation suits in the UK are obviously under their defamation laws which have a lot of problems with them. They're open to abuse by rich and powerful entities.
> > British defamation law is notoriously friendly to plaintiffs.
> English defamation law... does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood.
That's not 'notoriously friendly to plaintiffs'. It's simply reasonable behaviour: if someone says something horrible about someone else, the person saying it must be able to prove it was true.
- He did not sue his accuser. He sued people who trusted her word and amplified her allegations. England's (draconian) libel laws would require them to prove that the allegations were true. That's obviously very difficult.
- He lives in Germany, but he chose to sue in England. Germany has more typical libel laws that would require him to prove that he was defamed.
Are you familiar with British libel law? It's infamously plaintiff friendly. People have lost even though the statements in question were, in fact, truthful.
*A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. [..] English defamation law puts the burden of proof on the defendant, and does not require the plaintiff to prove falsehood." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
The glossed-over underlying issue in the linked article is that Britain's libel laws are notoriously hard to defend against. In the US, a comment has to be proven libelous; in the UK, you have to prove it isn't.
He won the case in the end. But he must have had a few brown trouser moments along the way, UK libel being what it is. IIRC it also ended with some UK reforms to libel law.
He did say in an interview somewhere that good ideas for books only along once in a while.
People talk about English defamation law, but they may not realise that there are reasonably recent (2013) changes.
The claimant has to show actual or probable serious harm; there has to be geographical relevance to bring the case in the UK; and there are stronger defences. (Truth, honest opinion, public interest, or priviledged publication (eg, scientific journal)).
These changes came around to protect freedom of speech a bit more than the old act did.
The British libel laws leave some to be desired but they would have solved a situation like this. Publications would not have been able to rebroadcast the accusation with proof.
He sued for defamation against the media organisations who exposed him and he lost _hard_. So all the facts that might ordinarily be in dispute and have tiptoe-around language to avoid being sued for can be stated plainly.
Why didn't he bring that case?
reply