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.
It's also worth noting that UK libel laws are considerably more liberal than the US libel laws. A statement that would be fine in the US could result in a life-shattering judgment in the UK.
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.
I remember reading a discussion on a UK site that a person could be convicted of libel in the UK even if the statement was true. (I am American, so dont base your defense on my comments.)
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.
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.
Given you have so many opinions, I presume you're aware of what libel laws are, right? So if he had a legal case (I'd imagine he does in fact, not have a legal case) he would be perfectly entitled to rebuke their claim, however, the claims would have to be untrue.
> As far as I understand libel laws in the UK are as follows. Person A makes mass public claim X about person B. Person B suffers financially or in reputation by claim X. If claim X is proven to not be true, alongside some evidence that A knew this, then B is entitled to compensation and a full retraction by A.
That's not the UK, that's a fair description of the libel laws in the US. (Actually, in most cases, actual knowledge of falsity is unnecessary; mere recklessness is sufficient. Knowledge of falsity is only necessary for certain cases, such as where the statements are about public figures and/or matters of public concern, where the Constitutional protection of free speech is held to be at its strongest.)
reply