If you want fair libel law for the Internet age, get involved(eu.techcrunch.com) |
If you want fair libel law for the Internet age, get involved(eu.techcrunch.com) |
2. It's unfortunate that the default position is encroachments on rights, requiring active defense for their preservation.
I'd suggest that there should be some protection against defamation, the issue is that the laws that exist in the UK at the moment do a poor job of differentiating between defending against genuine defamation and what is frankly an abuse of process (using the process and it's associated costs to intimidate).
2. The English libel law (which is what's up for reform this year) was pushed through in the 18th century as an alternative to the dueling field for blue-bloods with swords to defend their honour. It succeeded admirably in reducing the death rate, but the challenge/defense model implicit in a mediated replacement for dueling between peers doesn't transfer well to a situation where we have corporations using it as a vehicle for SLAPPs.
I'd really like to see, as a principle of law, the axiom that corporations do not have a personal reputation that can be impugned-- that reputation only applies to living human beings. As an example of why, consider the McLibel Case: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/McLibel
I'm sure the rest of the world feels like everythings all fucked up when they see US headlines too... :D
So when someone goes to forums and posts outright lies about a company (e.g., claiming that the company's software surreptitiously loads child pornography on to your computer so they can blackmail you), what recourse (if any) do you think the company should have?
The corporation speaks with a much louder voice than the individual.
(Moreover, web fora are the internet equivalent of a crowded bar: the law is a very blunt instrument indeed when it comes to dealing with words uttered in the heat of the moment during an ongoing conversation.)