IvanV wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:18 am
Millennie Al wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:55 pm
IvanV wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:36 am
In the US, they still have defamation laws, but much harder to win a case, and on top the clever wrinkle that public figures have to pass an even higher test to win a case. That seems to avoid the abuse of them we get here, while still retaining some kind of defamation back-stop.
Really? Does an ordinary person have a realistic chance of taking and winning a defamation case in the USA against a rich opponent? Over here, the cost of taking action is prohibitive. For ordinary people that means having to use a Conditional Fee Agreement, which than also means that there are limits on what you can do (since you're not paying for it, the payer is nervous about losing a lot of money and does not wan to take too many risks).
And, of course, the (civil) legal system in the USA is hugely defective, leading to many defendants simply paying compensation even when the claim is unlikely to win, because of the costs incurred by letting it get to court.
Libel abuse, which you don't like, is generally the rich suing the less rich. So I'm not sure why a point about the less rich suing the rich is relevant to what worries you.
That comment was on the US legal system in general. It is so defective it would be unwise to try to learn much from it.
You argued for no libel laws at all, to prevent libel abuse. So I'm not sure why it should concern you if it was impossible for the less rich to sue the rich.
It's not a good thing if abuse can only be perpetrated by the rich against the less rich. The solution is not to allow equal abuse by all, but to prevent the abuse completely.
But perhaps you are making the point, why have any defamation backstop at all if it is useless. But, as you yourself point out, in fact the rich get a lot of suits, which it is frequently cheaper for them to settle than fight, because you don't get awarded costs if you successfully defend a civil suit in the US. I agree with you that is a flaw in the US legal system. So, despite it being difficult to win libel suits in the US, there is some evidence of the powerful having to be careful about not defaming people, for all that freedom of speech is so much more protected in the US.
The situationb with regard to costs means that your worry is not to avoid defaming anyone because defending a meritless case against you is also very expensive. You need to avoid being sued. That's why Americans are so obsessed with suing people. And why they have a reputation for paying out in the face of meritless allegations (not specifically for libel , but for things like personal injury) though many have realised that getting a reputation for paying off false allegations makes them an attractive target for more.
The most prominent defamation cases in the US, at least from my view here the other side of the pond, recently all involve a very rich person being sued:
-Vernon Unsworth, cave diver, sued Elon Musk for being called a pedo. Musk won, successfully defending himself on the grounds that what he said was just invective. I was disappointed, but probably because of my attitude to Musk rather than the merits of his defence. On reflection, it seems clear it was invective rather than Musk being in possession of any evidence. In view of his defence, it would have been much cheaper for Musk to settle, while giving Unsworth satisfactory optics at the outcome. But Musk being Musk, maybe he wouldn't settle.
Not evidence of libel being useful. Pretty much everyone had already formed an opinion before the lawsuit and didn't change afterwards.
-Johnny Depp suing Amber Heard, and winning. So it is possible to win a case against a rich person, although the plaintiff was also very rich. A very interesting and unusual outcome in that Depp won in Virginia having lost in London, when the latter is generally so much more plaintiff friendly. Though in fact Heard appealed, and that was settled with Heard paying much smaller damages than was first awarded. So probably Depp felt there was a risk of losing the appeal, and taking a smaller settlement still left satisfactory optics for him. He got 2 goes at this, which is normally not available, because he sued a newspaper rather than Heard herself in London - Heard was only a witness in that case.
Not evidence of libel being useful. If libel is supposed to decide the truth, it's pretty disastrous to get opposite judgements in different jurisdictions. And, of course, these cases would never have been brought if the parties were not so very wealthy. Why should there be special laws for the rich that are inaccessible to almost everyone of modest means?
-Chess player Niemann suing Carlsen and others for being accused of cheating. No informed commentators expect Niemann to get very far with this, as his case seems weak in legal terms. Also, Carlsen may well be successful in arguing that Niemann himself is sufficient of a public figure to have to show "actual malice", which makes it even harder. So maybe Niemann's action is more about publicity and causing a nuisance. The statement of case reads more like a press release than a typical statement of case. The choice of jurisdiction - Missouri, where the controversial game was played rather than being the most sensible and obvious jurisdiction - is consistent with that. The fact Niemann can bring a case like this at all against super-wealthy Carlsen suggests that 19-yr-old Niemann might be worth a bob or two himself already, which is interesting.
As far as I can tell, the allegations of cheating are sinceely held beliefs of wrongdoing. As such, if they can be suppressed by libel laws, then laws are very wrong. Very many cases of wrongdoing can only be proven by starting with an allegation which the person making cannot themselves prove.
Though all of these are such unusual and individual cases, I'm not sure we can deduce very much from it.