It sure is open and shut. The definition of libel is pretty clear and there's nothing in it about intent: "defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc."
If you're going to go on public record to talk shit about someone you better have your facts straight.
It sure is open and shut. The definition of libel is pretty clear and there's nothing in it about intent: "defamation with a permanent record, such as an email, a radio or TV broadcast, a newspaper, a website posting, etc."
If you're going to go on public record to talk shit about someone you better have your facts straight.
It's on him.
If that's the language of the English statute, that statute is garbage (not surprising for modern England, though).
And you know damn well that this law isn't applied in an evenhanded manner, but is instead just a tool for destroying the enemies of the System.
It shouldn't be news that pissing off powerful people can earn you a punch on the nose.
It's not news to anyone here, but you were speaking as if it's not the case, that the standards in the law as written matter.
I'm only speaking about this case.
If the libel laws could be applied universally many of the commenters on .win would be in trouble.