Libel Blowback Against U.K. Retweeters & Commenters

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New York Times yesterday reported that a retired British politician, who already has collected defamation judgments from the BBC and ITV for accounts wrongly linking him to child sexual abuse, has turned his attention in the plaintiff libel-friendly U.K. toward re-tweeters and others who commented about him on the social media site.

Seventy-year-old Alistair McAlpine, a former Conservative Party treasurer and confidante of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, recovered 185,000 pounds ($296,275) from the BBC after the broadcaster's Newsnight program wrongly linked him, though not directly by name, to alleged child abuse in North Wales. Twitter users were able to identify him based on the BBC story, which the broadcaster conceded was a case of mistaken identity by the accuser. The ITV television network settled McAlpine's libel suit against them for 125,000 pounds ($200,182), according to the Times article.

McAlpine, an author and one-time deputy chair of the Conservative Party (1979-83), is pursuing libel claims against 20 prominent individuals who tweeted about the false child abuse accusations, among them, a comic, a newspaper columnist and the spouse of a prominent politician, the Times reported. Additionally, McAlpine's attorneys have created a Web site that includes a form to complete for lower-profile Tweeters who purportedly defamed him. These tweeters, who have fewer than 500 followers, would be required to apologize, make a charitable donation and be subject to a small administrative fee for their alleged transgressions, which could amount to little more than innuendo or indirect reference to the child abuse allegations.

In the U.S., the tweeters likely would be protected from liability by 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which provides: "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Additionally, many states recognize the "wire service rule" as a defense against libel. Under that rule, espoused in cases such as Appleby v. Daily Hampshire Gazette, 395 Mass. 32 (1985), one may avoid liability if one republished a news item from a reputable wire service, such as Associated Press or Reuters, without knowing the item was false or having any reason to doubt the truth of the item on its face, provided the republication does not substantially alter the news item.

International Court Comes to the Rescue of UK Journalists

Image via WikipediaThe always informative Web site for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (www.rcfp.org) reported last week on a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (MGN, Ltd. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 39401/04) that will shield journalists and bloggers in the U.K. who lose invasion of privacy or libel suits from onerous "success fees."

The  international court found the imposition of solicitor fees and court costs on unsuccessful media defendants a violation of their civil and political rights.  The underlying lawsuit involved volatile supermodel Naomi Campbell, who successfully sued Daily Mirror publisher MGN, Ltd. for breach of confidentiality under the Data Protection Act of 1998. Although Campbell's damages were only 3500 pounds ($5,597)--more than the combined weight of 35 supermodels--the media defendant was assessed "success fees" totaling 1.1 million pounds ($1.7 million).

The European Court of Human Rights found the assessment disproportionate to the damages suffered by the plaintiff and an attempt to stifle freedom of expression pursuant to Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights. The ruling may effect England's use of conditional fee agreements, which similiar to their U.S. counterpart, contingent fee agreements, enable libel plaintiffs to secure counsel willing to operate under the no-win, no-fee arrangement.

Brit Investigative Reporters Take a Hit in Times Libel Ruling

Image via Wikipedia

According to www.guardian.co.uk, Metro Police Detective Sgt. Gary Flood's successful outcome this week in his libel action against the Times has negative ramifications generally for investigative reporters toiling in the U.K.

Lord Justice David Neuberger headed the panel of three appeal judges who ruled in the Flood case that newspaper articles are not shielded by the so-called Reynolds privilege. The defense was spawned in 2001 and protects investigative reporters who act responsibly in reporting in good faith on matters of public concern.

Flood sued the Times in June 2006, after an article appeared that accused him of accepting bribes. An initial judicial ruling found the Reynolds qualified privilege applicable to the Times' print version account of the Flood story, but held the privilege was lost on the Times' website version of the story because an official  probe had cleared Flood of the bribery allegations.

Critics of the appeals court decision are fearful that it throws into chaos the long-recognized libel defense of "neutral reportage," which protects journalists neutrally republishing allegedly defamatory remarks if the story is newsworthy and concerns a public controversy, the remarks at issue are made by a responsible individual or group, concern a public official, public figure or organization, and the story containing the allegedly defamatory remarks is accurate and includes denials or other views.

The Times is expected to petition the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the ruling.

U.K. Mirrors U.S. in Declining Newspaper Circulation

Image via Wikipedia

Things aren't going well for the newspaper industry across the pond, according to a story in The Guardian (guardian..co.uk).

"The Evolution of News and the Internet," a report prepared by the Organsation for Economic Cooperation and Development ("OECD"), revealed that since 2007, the U.K. is second only to the U.S. in declining newspaper circulation. Between 2007-2009, newspaper circulation dropped 25 percent in the U.K., compared to a 30 percent plunge in the U.S. Other nations that experienced a dramatic drop in newspaper readership included Greece at 20 percent; Italy, 18 percent; and Canada at 17 percent. In all, 20 of the 30 OECD nations surveyed experienced a decline in newspaper circulation.

U.K. Fears Domestic Newsstands Outcome of Liberal Libel Laws

Image via Wikipedia

Members of Parliament are concerned that England's favorable climate for libel plaintiffs against media defendants could prompt U.S. and other foreign newspaper and magazine outlets to block access to their Web sites and stop selling their publications in the United Kingdom.

A memorandum submitted to MPs on behalf of several media organizations, including The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and MacMillan Publishers, warns that foreign newspapers may abandon the nominal sale of 200-plus copies of their publications in London, rather than risk exposure to "libel tourism," or forum-shopping by plaintiffs who seek out jurisdictions, such as the U.K., where defamation actions may be brought based on speech that would be protected in less libel-friendly nations, such as the United States. A meeting between U.S. Publishers and the House of Commons is upcoming.