Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 07, 2017, 06:49:03 AM
-
I have, on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently framed .
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/
-
I have, on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently framed .
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/
Libel (and Slander) are a rich persons game. It is not possible to issue a libel action within ones local County Court, since whilst the relevant statute was passed as long ago as 1985, the necessary practice direction has never been issued. It is technically possible to have a libel action transferred to the County Court for Trial if all parties agree to the amount that can be awarded being limited to £50 000 (the County Court limit) but in practice this is rare. Like most High Court actions, the majority of these cases are settled out of court.
-
I have, on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently framed .
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/
NS
tbh , I have no idea what this case is about or why you've posted it . I've read the link but not much wiser ,. Perhaps you could just explain briefly then I can decide if its important to me or not , thanks .
-
Libel (and Slander) are a rich persons game. It is not possible to issue a libel action within ones local County Court, since whilst the relevant statute was passed as long ago as 1985, the necessary practice direction has never been issued. It is technically possible to have a libel action transferred to the County Court for Trial if all parties agree to the amount that can be awarded being limited to £50 000 (the County Court limit) but in practice this is rare. Like most High Court actions, the majority of these cases are settled out of court.
Having re read this, does Craig live in England, or Scotland? If he lives in Scotland, then the Writ from the English Court cannot be served since he would be outside of the jurisdiction of the court, unless he consents, in which case he would seem to be making a rod for his own back.
-
Having re read this, does Craig live in England, or Scotland? If he lives in Scotland, then the Writ from the English Court cannot be served since he would be outside of the jurisdiction of the court, unless he consents, in which case he would seem to be making a rod for his own back.
If you re read it did you miss the bit at the start where he said he has accepted English jurisdiction?
-
NS
tbh , I have no idea what this case is about or why you've posted it . I've read the link but not much wiser ,. Perhaps you could just explain briefly then I can decide if its important to me or not , thanks .
You did not see the link within the main link? It contains a copy of the court documents including a transcript of the dialogue involved.
-
If you re read it did you miss the bit at the start where he said he has accepted English jurisdiction?
Yes I did. He is making a rod for his own back.
-
Yes I did. He is making a rod for his own back.
Yes, I don't understand whty he went with that. And I agree it is a rich person's law which shuts down free speech. Note it's not just English law that is flawed here, same issue in Scotland.
-
If he loses the case, then it will be up to the jury as to what he has to pay, the Judge will give guidance to the jury, the huge costs of the case will be what can bankrupt a litigant.
That is why IMHO the Practice Direction should be issued so as to enable the local court to hear this matter. If I want to sue you for an article in the Ilford Recorder, I should be able to sue you in the Romford County Court rather than be forced to go to the RCJ in the Strand.
-
Andy Wightman, Green MSP, is currently being sued for 750,000 by a company that has no real assets.
http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/12/12/andy-wightman-being-sued-for-750000-in-defamation-action/
-
Andy Wightman, Green MSP, is currently being sued for 750,000 by a company that has no real assets.
http://www.scottishlegal.com/2016/12/12/andy-wightman-being-sued-for-750000-in-defamation-action/
I have had some, albeit small, experience of the Scottish legal system, although it was breach of contract rather than libel/slander, can one of our Scottish posters inform us as to how such an action proceeds under Scottish Law?
-
I have, on occasion, put up links to Craig Murray's blog and today is when the libel case against him starts. It's an iniquitous law as currently framed .
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/go-stand-trial/
As far as I can see, he is guilty as charged. The claimant quoted from Murray's blog and Murray called him a liar saying that he (Murray) had never said what he did say (I went to the blog post in question (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/10/) and the quote is accurate).
Having said that, I really don't see how Murray's comment in a lively TV debate is going to materially disadvantage this Jake Wallis Simons person and I assume that is going to be the central plank of Murray's defence. And I do agree that something needs to be done about the iniquitous costs involved in defending (or mounting) a libel case, but I have no idea what.
-
Another interesting point is that the publisher of the comments was technically the broadcaster BSkyB. I presume the reason that they are not named as co-defendants is because they have got plenty of money for lawyers. More evidence that libel is a rich man's law.
-
As far as I can see, he is guilty as charged. The claimant quoted from Murray's blog and Murray called him a liar saying that he (Murray) had never said what he did say (I went to the blog post in question (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/10/) and the quote is accurate).
Having said that, I really don't see how Murray's comment in a lively TV debate is going to materially disadvantage this Jake Wallis Simons person and I assume that is going to be the central plank of Murray's defence. And I do agree that something needs to be done about the iniquitous costs involved in defending (or mounting) a libel case, but I have no idea what.
Yes, I agree that it's a bang to rights thing, but as you say not sure someone who I had never heard of could be damaged to that extent. Looking at the comments on the blog it appears to have been settled, though not sure what Craig had to cough up. I really must buy him that drink I owe him.
-
It seems that someone was advised to see sense. Glad it’s resolved.
-
Looking at the comments on the blog it appears to have been settled, though not sure what Craig had to cough up.
Reading the blog it appears that the £100k he raised will cover everything, including the legal costs, with an implication that there will be some left over.
So in a bizarre financial way everyone appears to be a winner (or at least not a loser) - Murray, Wallis-Simons and especially the lawyers. The only losers financially seem to be those people who donated to him.
Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.
-
Reading the blog it appears that the £100k he raised will cover everything, including the legal costs, with an implication that there will be some left over.
So in a bizarre financial way everyone appears to be a winner (or at least not a loser) - Murray, Wallis-Simons and especially the lawyers. The only losers financially seem to be those people who donated to him.
Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.
You don't see the issue that libel laws are the preserve of the rich and that they are used to bankrupt people to stop comment?
Have a look at my link to the Andy Wightman case posted earlier and tell me why you think that works?
Tell me why needing to raise thousands of pounds to defend yourself is a good system?
BTW - why are you implying that Craig is benefitting from this when the blog post makes clear that any extra proceeds will be shared to other libel cases including Wightman's?
-
BTW - why are you implying that Craig is benefitting from this when the blog post makes clear that any extra proceeds will be shared to other libel cases including Wightman's?
I didn't - read my post - particularly the bit in brackets.
-
As far as I can see, he is guilty as charged. The claimant quoted from Murray's blog and Murray called him a liar saying that he (Murray) had never said what he did say (I went to the blog post in question (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/10/) and the quote is accurate).
Having said that, I really don't see how Murray's comment in a lively TV debate is going to materially disadvantage this Jake Wallis Simons person and I assume that is going to be the central plank of Murray's defence. And I do agree that something needs to be done about the iniquitous costs involved in defending (or mounting) a libel case, but I have no idea what.
I don't think he is guilty as charged.
The line in the blog is "with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world."
Jake Wallis Simmons claimed live on Sky that Murray's blog said "Israel, quote "claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.""
I don't think you can say "Israel" and "an aggressive theocratic overlay" are synonymous. So Simmons was mis-quoting from the blog. Also Murray starts his sentence on his blog talking about "the concept of Israel", which I think is a very different subject to talking about the actual Israel.
Not sure which claims Murray was referring to when he said an aggressive theocratic overlay claims tribal superiority. Theocratic claims to tribal superiority could be referring to the claim that the Jews are God's Chosen People e.g. Deuteronomy Chapter 14 "For you are a holy people to Hashem your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth."
And I am not sure what Murray meant by "the concept of Israel".
My view of the Zionist concept of Israel is the notion of Jews going to Zion (the hill of Jerusalem) to attain majority status in the area and, ultimately, political independence and statehood.
The concept involved carrying out unrestricted immigration of Jews into Palestine, whose ancestors had lived for hundreds of years in different parts of the world and had no ancestral claims to the land. The Jewish immigrants ignored the immigration restrictions preventing them from settling in Palestine and forcibly create a Jewish homeland owned by Jews, at the expense of the native Arabs. Of course other people had carried out similar acts of colonisation and appropriation - the Ottomans, the settlers in America and their treatment of native Americans etc. The Arabs managed to revolt against the Ottomans but the native Americans ended up on reservations.
-
Reading the blog it appears that the £100k he raised will cover everything, including the legal costs, with an implication that there will be some left over.
So in a bizarre financial way everyone appears to be a winner (or at least not a loser) - Murray, Wallis-Simons and especially the lawyers. The only losers financially seem to be those people who donated to him.
Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.
I contributed to his fund after NS posted a link and shared the link with friends. I don't feel like I lost financially - I think it was worth it to help support Murray's right to speak up against attempts to silence criticisms of Zionism.
-
I contributed to his fund after NS posted a link and shared the link with friends. I don't feel like I lost financially - I think it was worth it to help support Murray's right to speak up against attempts to silence criticisms of Zionism.
That's fine - however you have less money now than before you donated, so by definition you have lost financially. That you think that is worthwhile is fine, but it doesn't change that fact.
The point I was making is that we are in a strange world where those with a high profile (although not necessarily rich) can raise monies to fight cases and therefore buffer themselves for the penalty that the law imposes in these cases, which is usually financial. So provided you have enough backers prepared to put their hands in their pockets you can, in effect, say what you like. I find that a little troubling, as fundamentally I am on the side of those who are libelled rather than those who libel.
-
That's fine - however you have less money now than before you donated, so by definition you have lost financially. That you think that is worthwhile is fine, but it doesn't change that fact.
Strange way for you to look at it - when I buy a car I haven't lost financially. You only lose financially if you have not gained something for the money you spent. So there is no fact - just your strange opinion.
The point I was making is that we are in a strange world where those with a high profile (although not necessarily rich) can raise monies to fight cases and therefore buffer themselves for the penalty that the law imposes in these cases, which is usually financial. So provided you have enough backers prepared to put their hands in their pockets you can, in effect, say what you like. I find that a little troubling, as fundamentally I am on the side of those who are libelled rather than those who libel.
In this case libel laws are being used to silence people from expressing legitimate views. I think Murray was mis-quoted, and the law did not impose a financial penalty - the case never went to court. Murray needed the money in order to have an attempt at a fair trial. Presumably you support the idea of someone having a fair trial. Currently the libel laws mean poor people who can't afford a lawyer are unlikely to get a fair trial.
-
Strange way for you to look at it - when I buy a car I haven't lost financially. You only lose financially if you have not gained something for the money you spent. So there is no fact - just your strange opinion.
All I was doing was being factually accurate - and given that the focus of the thread is cost, then that seems reasonable.
In this case libel laws are being used to silence people from expressing legitimate views.
Other opinions are available - the libel claim was that Murray said that Wallis-Simons was lying - indeed he did so several times. Murray freely admits that his claim was wrong (and is presumably defamatory - although I suspect not grossly as accusations of lying are ten a penny). If someone makes a claim that is defamatory and the person making that claim cannot prove the claim to be true then there is libel - that's what the law says.
I think Murray was mis-quoted, and the law did not impose a financial penalty - the case never went to court.
But that wasn't what the libel claim was about - it was about Murray claiming Wallis-Simons was lying and he has admitted that he was wrong in making that claim.
Murray needed the money in order to have an attempt at a fair trial. Presumably you support the idea of someone having a fair trial. Currently the libel laws mean poor people who can't afford a lawyer are unlikely to get a fair trial.
As I have said I am more concerned about those who are libelled - I think there is a much greater problem with people who cannot defend themselves having been libelled in the traditional media and on-line.
-
Must admit I can't quite see the issue here - we have libel laws for a reason - they protect people from damaging comments being made about them which are untrue. Without libel laws people would be ably to disseminate untrue and damaging comments about individuals with impunity.
The issue is that your ability to prosecute or defend a libel case depends almost entirely on the depth of your pockets. Let's say that the Daily Mail falsely claimed that you were a pedophile. You lose your job, your partner. Have you got the resources to bring a libel claim against them? Their lawyers can just keep stalling until you run out of money.
Or if you claim on this board that the Daily Mail regularly publishes lies and disinformation and the DM brings a libel claim against you, do you have the resources to defend it?
-
If I give money to something I think is worthwhile then I haven’t lost, unless all charitable donations should be viewed as such, as well as money spent on experiences, because there is no material gain, only feelings.
-
The issue is that your ability to prosecute or defend a libel case depends almost entirely on the depth of your pockets. Let's say that the Daily Mail falsely claimed that you were a pedophile. You lose your job, your partner. Have you got the resources to bring a libel claim against them? Their lawyers can just keep stalling until you run out of money.
Or if you claim on this board that the Daily Mail regularly publishes lies and disinformation and the DM brings a libel claim against you, do you have the resources to defend it?
Yes I understand - but the nature of libel is that it is for the person who makes a claim to prove that the claim is true - so the burden of proof for the veracity of the claim lies with the person making the claim. Which means your two situations aren't quite equivalent.
In the former the person libelled against is completely innocent and natural justice would require the Daily Mail to prove their comments to be correct but lack of funds prevent them from having to do so.
In the latter natural justice suggests that the person making the claim (i.e. not the Daily Mail) needs to prove their claims about the Daily Mail are correct - that they don't have sufficient money to do so doesn't seem to me to be so mucho if an issue - if they weren't able to prove their claims were true, perhaps they shouldn't have made the claim in the first place.
-
I don't think he is guilty as charged.
The line in the blog is "with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world."
If you are going to quote from the blog, put all the context in. The full sentence was
It [Israel] is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.
So Jake Wallis Simons may not have got the exact wording correct, but he certainly did not distort the overall meaning. I think you certainly could construe that sentence as anti-semitic which was the thrust of the argument. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that, having quoted Murray's blog, Simons was accused of lying and that is the basis of his libel claim.
-
If I give money to something I think is worthwhile then I haven’t lost, unless all charitable donations should be viewed as such, as well as money spent on experiences, because there is no material gain, only feelings.
I was only making the point in a purely financial sense - the point about a libel claim is that usually one person end up financially up, the other financially down - and that is the manner of the sanction imposed by the courts or agreed out of court, depending on whose view is considered to be correct. In this case it appears that neither Murray nor Wallis-Simons have ended up financially down - all very odd.
-
If you are going to quote from the blog, put all the context in. The full sentence was
So Jake Wallis Simons may not have got the exact wording correct, but he certainly did not distort the overall meaning. I think you certainly could construe that sentence as anti-semitic which was the thrust of the argument. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that, having quoted Murray's blog, Simons was accused of lying and that is the basis of his libel claim.
That is correct, and don't forget that Murray on live tv said the following:
'Yes, it is a compete and utter lie. I have never, ever said anything vaguely like that'
Regardless of whether the quote was word for word correct (it was pretty well 100%) he certainly did say something 'vaguely' like that.
-
In the former the person libelled against is completely innocent and natural justice would require the Daily Mail to prove their comments to be correct but lack of funds prevent them from having to do so.
So justice is not served because the libel victim ran out of money.
In the latter natural justice suggests that the person making the claim (i.e. not the Daily Mail) needs to prove their claims about the Daily Mail are correct - that they don't have sufficient money to do so doesn't seem to me to be so mucho if an issue - if they weren't able to prove their claims were true, perhaps they shouldn't have made the claim in the first place.
So a completely true statement has been censored for lack of money. You are claiming that we should all constrain our speech based on whether we can afford to defend them in a court of law, not on whether the speech is true. Don't you see the problem with that?
In both cases the wrong conclusion has been reached because one side - the side in the wrong - has vastly more money than the other side. In neither case was justice served. In neither case was the public interest served. Yes, they are not completely analogous, but that just means there are two issues with our libel law, not just one.
-
All I was doing was being factually accurate - and given that the focus of the thread is cost, then that seems reasonable.
How is it factually accurate to say I have lost financially when I haven't if I gained something in return for the money I spent?
Other opinions are available - the libel claim was that Murray said that Wallis-Simons was lying - indeed he did so several times. Murray freely admits that his claim was wrong (and is presumably defamatory - although I suspect not grossly as accusations of lying are ten a penny). If someone makes a claim that is defamatory and the person making that claim cannot prove the claim to be true then there is libel - that's what the law says.
But that wasn't what the libel claim was about - it was about Murray claiming Wallis-Simons was lying and he has admitted that he was wrong in making that claim.
As I have said I am more concerned about those who are libelled - I think there is a much greater problem with people who cannot defend themselves having been libelled in the traditional media and on-line.
It's libel if it is shown in court that there is damage to reputation. Just labeling someone a liar is not libel. And Wallis-Simons took many steps to refute the accusation on air and subsequently on Twitter.
Murray said he was talking about the concept of Israel in his blog, as opposed to Israel. The quote was taken from his blog out of context and was used by Wallis-Simons to refer to Israel accompanied by a charge of anti-Semitism, hence Murray did not recognise the quote in the way it was portrayed.
It's up to a court to determine if libel occurred - that's an expensive process. You can't just assume someone was libelled, just because they claim they have. I think it should not be an expensive process - as that means only people who have money can take action against possible libel or defend themselves from those actions.
ETA - also the court documents show that the claim was about more than the accusation of lying. It was also about comments written on the blog about Simons.
-
If you are going to quote from the blog, put all the context in. The full sentence was
So Jake Wallis Simons may not have got the exact wording correct, but he certainly did not distort the overall meaning. I think you certainly could construe that sentence as anti-semitic which was the thrust of the argument. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that, having quoted Murray's blog, Simons was accused of lying and that is the basis of his libel claim.
The full quote is:
"Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett has claimed of Binyamin Netanyahu that “The prime minister is not a private person but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world.” Really? Netanyahu is the leader of all the Jews in London, or California, or Ethiopia, who may never have set foot in his state?
This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel. It is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. It is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world."
As you can see from above, Murray was referring to the concept of Israel, based on the Naftali Bennett's claim that Netanyahu was not a private person but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world.
As you can also see, Murray was referring to the aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.
To me that is very different from saying Israel claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world.
Murray says he was wrong to call Simons a liar. That does not mean he has admitted to libel. He was still planning on defending himself in court from accusations of libel. He also denies the accusations of anti-Semitism, though he is critical of the Zionist concept of Israel.
-
It's libel if it is shown in court that there is damage to reputation.
"Serious harm" is the actual wording.
Just labeling someone a liar is not libel. And Wallis-Simons took many steps to refute the accusation on air and subsequently on Twitter.
It is libel if it caused serious harm to his reputation. Personally, I don't think it did, but Simon clearly disagrees with me.
Murray said he was talking about the concept of Israel in his blog, as opposed to Israel.
Weasel words. As PD says, Murray claimed he never said that or "anything vaguely like that". The concept of Israel is so close to being Israel that you'd be splitting hairs to assert Murray wasn't talking about Israel.
The quote was taken from his blog out of context and was used by Wallis-Simons to refer to Israel accompanied by a charge of anti-Semitism, hence Murray did not recognise the quote in the way it was portrayed.
Oh stop bullshitting. The quote was almost verbatim.
It's up to a court to determine if libel occurred - that's an expensive process. You can't just assume someone was libelled, just because they claim they have. I think it should not be an expensive process - as that means only people who have money can take action against possible libel or defend themselves from those actions.
This I agree with, but I admit I do not have a solution.
-
As you can see from above, Murray was referring to the concept of Israel, based on the Naftali Bennett's claim that Netanyahu was not a private person but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world.
It's the same thing.
And, honestly, I do know why you are carrying on with this crap. The statement is not at issue. What is at issue is whether Murray was defaming Simon by calling him a liar.
Murray says he was wrong to call Simons a liar.
Right, so he admits he made a false statement in respect of Simons.
That does not mean he has admitted to libel. He was still planning on defending himself in court from accusations of libel.
Well he settled out of court, so we'll never know. My personal opinion is that the libel claim would probably have failed because I don't think the liar claim did serious harm to his reputation. But I'm just a layman.
He also denies the accusations of anti-Semitism, though he is critical of the Zionist concept of Israel.
Which is irrelevant, although I think claims of anti-semitism are often used to shut down criticism of the modern state of Israel. On the other hand, some of the criticism of modern Israel are unfair. At least, in Israel, if you are gay you can live a life without fear. This is not the case in the Palestinian controlled territory or any of the surrounding Islamic states.
-
"Serious harm" is the actual wording.
It is libel if it caused serious harm to his reputation. Personally, I don't think it did, but Simon clearly disagrees with me.
Weasel words. As PD says, Murray claimed he never said that or "anything vaguely like that". The concept of Israel is so close to being Israel that you'd be splitting hairs to assert Murray wasn't talking about Israel.
Oh stop bullshitting. The quote was almost verbatim.
This I agree with, but I admit I do not have a solution.
Weasel words and stop bullshitting - no argument there to engage with. Ok i’ll play. You stop bullshitting. No you...no you.... ::)
-
It's the same thing.
And, honestly, I do know why you are carrying on with this crap. The statement is not at issue. What is at issue is whether Murray was defaming Simon by calling him a liar.
I’m continuing because I don’t think the statement is anti-Semitic. Ypu’re wring - a concept is different from a reality. If it’s the same thing, why insert the word “concept”? Many people use specific words for a reason - that other people don’t recognise nuance is probably because it doesn’t fit in with their agenda.
Right, so he admits he made a false statement in respect of Simons.
He admits he was wrong to call Simons a liar, probably because Simons stared the legal definition of “lying” and Murray can’t prove the truth of his claims, so it is better to withdraw the accusation from a legal perspective.
At least, in Israel, if you are gay you can live a life without fear. This is not the case in the Palestinian controlled territory or any of the surrounding Islamic states.
Irrelevant
-
So justice is not served because the libel victim ran out of money.
Yes which isn't good.
So a completely true statement has been censored for lack of money. You are claiming that we should all constrain our speech based on whether we can afford to defend them in a court of law, not on whether the speech is true. Don't you see the problem with that?
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't really see evidence of freedom of speech being constrained in this fashion. The current example is a case in point - actually what Murray said on his blog has greater profile now than it had before, simply because of the libel claim. And regardless the libel claim had nothing directly to do with his opinion - nope it was to do with the fact that he erroneously claimed Wallis was a lying when he quoted (pretty well word for word) what was on his blog.
I have greater concerns about statements being made that are untrue and derogatory and in our current on-line world can spread like wildfire, than I do about people being able to make comments and express view - which likewise we are in a golden age due to on-line fora. So I really don't get his notion that the libel laws are being used to close down freedom of speech. I do get the notion that the libel laws can close down freedom to make untrue comments that are derogatory, but that is a good thing.
-
Weasel words and stop bullshitting - no argument there to engage with.
Only if you dishonestly ignore the rest of the post which states exactly why your words are weasel and you were bullshitting.
Interesting that you ignore the substance of the post in favour of picking out a few phrases about which you can pretend outrage.
-
Yes which isn't good.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't really see evidence of freedom of speech being constrained in this fashion. The current example is a case in point - actually what Murray said on his blog has greater profile now than it had before, simply because of the libel claim. And regardless the libel claim had nothing directly to do with his opinion - nope it was to do with the fact that he erroneously claimed Wallis was a lying when he quoted (pretty well word for word) what was on his blog.
But one case cannot be generalised in the way that you are doing.
Robert Maxwell is a case in point, he repeatedly used the libel laws to gag people who were telling the truth about his nefarious dealings. Freedom of speech and the public interest were not served by his use of the libel laws.
So I really don't get his notion that the libel laws are being used to close down freedom of speech. I do get the notion that the libel laws can close down freedom to make untrue comments that are derogatory, but that is a good thing.
His notion? It was my claim that libel laws are used to shut down freedom of speech. Other people have, I'm sure, also made that claim, but in this case it is definitely me making the claim, not putting the words into somebody else's mouth.
-
I’m continuing because I don’t think the statement is anti-Semitic.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
Simon accused Murray of libel as the latter claimed the former was lying, which was not true.
Gabriella I think you mistakenly confusion whether you agree with Murray's opinion on his blog, with the issue of libel. Libel isn't something that you don't agree with it is a derogatory comment that is not proven to be true.
-
His notion?
Sorry - typo - mean 'this notion'
-
I’m continuing because I don’t think the statement is anti-Semitic. Ypu’re wring - a concept is different from a reality. If it’s the same thing, why insert the word “concept”?
The word "concept" wasn't used in the sentence that was quoted. The sentence started with the word "it", which could have been referring to Israel or the concept of Israel or both.
I'd be grateful, by the way, if you could tell me exactly what the difference is between Israel and the concept of Israel is and why it matters in this case.
Many people use specific words for a reason - that other people don’t recognise nuance is probably because it doesn’t fit in with their agenda.
And it doesn't matter with respect to libel.
He admits he was wrong to call Simons a liar, probably because Simons stared the legal definition of “lying” and Murray can’t prove the truth of his claims
Simons said that Murray said something. Murray called Simons a liar. Murray did actually say the thing that Simons claimed he said. Therefore Simons is not a liar.
It's not rocket science.
so it is better to withdraw the accusation from a legal perspective.Irrelevant
It was a false accusation. cIt's better to withdraw it from any perspective.
-
Robert Maxwell is a case in point, he repeatedly used the libel laws to gag people who were telling the truth about his nefarious dealings. Freedom of speech and the public interest were not served by his use of the libel laws.
Robert Maxwell has been dead for over a quarter of a century and the world has moved on dramatically since then.
The big change is that it is now ridiculously easy to put views/opinions and to make claims on public forums, via the web, with little or no checking on the veracity of those claims. I genuinely cannot see any evidence (in 2017, not the 1980s) of freedom of speech being curtailed through threats of libel. However the big change since the 1980s is that now it is the work of seconds to put out a comment, that might be derogatory and untrue, that can be seen by millions and once published on the web is almost impossible to remove.
I think a bigger issue is that web-sites etc can be held responsible for what they 'publish' on-line. I think this needs to be addressed, particularly in circumstances where comments can be made in real time, without going through moderation.
-
Only if you dishonestly ignore the rest of the post which states exactly why your words are weasel and you were bullshitting.
Interesting that you ignore the substance of the post in favour of picking out a few phrases about which you can pretend outrage.
I wasn't pretending outrage - I'm not outraged, pretend or otherwise - I was laughing at your phrasing. Interesting that you incorrectly read it as outrage - you're obviously prone to making incorrect assumptions when you read someone else's words.
I was pointing out that your descriptions of my opinion were not an argument.
Neither was your assertion that the "concept of Israel" is the same as "Israel".
Nor was your dishonest assertion that "and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world." and "Israel claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world" are almost verbatim.
It clearly isn't almost verbatim - apart from the last 10 words - the tribal superiority part. There are 17 words in the phrase that Murray wrote in his blog and swapping the 7 words at the start of the phrase with the word "Israel" means it is not almost verbatim, as you dishonestly claimed.
The important part is the subject that is claiming tribal superiority, and Simons changed the subject to Israel and made an accusation against Murray of anti-Semitism rebranded as anti-Zionism after taking the words out of context.
-
The word "concept" wasn't used in the sentence that was quoted. The sentence started with the word "it", which could have been referring to Israel or the concept of Israel or both.
It reads to me as referring to the concept of Israel, since the prior sentence was "This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel". The next sentence starts with "It" and follows with "is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. It is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world."
Murray's defence also highlights that he was referring to the concept of Israel.
I'd be grateful, by the way, if you could tell me exactly what the difference is between Israel and the concept of Israel is and why it matters in this case.
Israel is the state currently defined under and subject to international law.
The concept of Israel is the establishment by public law of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, which doesn’t belong solely to its citizens, but to the entire Jewish people. The practical expression of this commitment is the Law of Return, which the Knesset passed in 1950. In 1970, Israel took another historic step by granting automatic citizenship not only to Jews, but also to their non-Jewish children, grandchildren, and spouses, and to the non-Jewish spouses of their children and grandchildren.
http://www.jewishagency.org/first-steps/program/5131
It matters because clearly all these world-wide Jews arriving in Israel that have a right to settle there need somewhere to live. The US Ambassador to Israel recently commented that he considered illegal West Bank settlements as part of Israel.
https://www.ft.com/content/9bc87130-a480-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2
The bull-dozing of Palestinian orchards and villages and the expansion of Israeli settlements is making it almost impossible for a peace process to move forward.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/02/palestinian-families-homeless-as-israeli-military-demolishes-west-bank-houses
Why else do you think Murray's blog started by talking about the claim that Netanyahu was leader of the whole Jewish world and then moved onto discussing the concept of Israel?
And it doesn't matter with respect to libel.
Simons said that Murray said something. Murray called Simons a liar. Murray did actually say the thing that Simons claimed he said. Therefore Simons is not a liar.
It's not rocket science.
It was a false accusation. cIt's better to withdraw it from any perspective.
In order to call someone a liar and defend yourself in court against libel, the burden of proof is on you to show that your accusation of lying was true - which is why defending yourself against a libel case can be a very costly exercise. Since it is difficult to prove that taking the quote out of context and substituting "Israel" where it referred to the concept of Israel's theocratic overlay, amounts to lying, Murray has been correctly advised to withdraw the accusation of lying.
Read the defence documents - Murray's defence denies Simons' paragraph 5 i.e the words complained of. Murray's defence also claims that the context of the words is important.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/jake-wallis-simons-v-craig-murray/
Also, Simons' libel case is about Murray claiming in his blog that Simons is part of a campaign to discredit Palestinian supporters as anti-semites. So it doesn't just concern the accusation of lying.
-
Robert Maxwell has been dead for over a quarter of a century and the world has moved on dramatically since then.
In your opinion have the libel laws moved on since his day?
I genuinely cannot see any evidence (in 2017, not the 1980s) of freedom of speech being curtailed through threats of libel.
It was attempted against Simon Singh.
However the big change since the 1980s is that now it is the work of seconds to put out a comment, that might be derogatory and untrue, that can be seen by millions and once published on the web is almost impossible to remove.
And if the comment is put up by somebody very rich, it's almost impossible to get damages because they'll bankrupt you before the trial is over.
-
I wasn't pretending outrage - I'm not outraged, pretend or otherwise - I was laughing at your phrasing. Interesting that you incorrectly read it as outrage - you're obviously prone to making incorrect assumptions when you read someone else's words.
Now you are deflecting.
I was pointing out that your descriptions of my opinion were not an argument.
By ignoring the bits of the post that were the argument.
It clearly isn't almost verbatim - apart from the last 10 words - the tribal superiority part. There are 17 words in the phrase that Murray wrote in his blog and swapping the 7 words at the start of the phrase with the word "Israel" means it is not almost verbatim, as you dishonestly claimed.
If it wasn't almost verbatim how was it that I spotted the quote in the blog almost straight away. If you read the sentence in context, it clearly is referring to Israel. I called your assertion weasel words because you were hair splitting to try to make it look like Craig Murray didn't say what Simons claimed he said.
The important part is the subject that is claiming tribal superiority, and Simons changed the subject to Israel and made an accusation against Murray of anti-Semitism rebranded as anti-Zionism after taking the words out of context.
No, the important part in the context of this thread is that Craig Murray accused him of lying, when no reasonable person would call what Simons said a lie.
-
[loads of crap that's not relevant elided]
Also, Simons' libel case is about Murray claiming in his blog that Simons is part of a campaign to discredit Palestinian supporters as anti-semites. So it doesn't just concern the accusation of lying.
You obviously didn't read the court documents. The claim of libel is all about Murray's statements that Simons lied on a TV programme. The transcript is there with the relevant parts underlined.
-
People make throwaway comments on live tv debate all the time. I’m wondering if Andrew Neill could sue Harriet Harman. And would that be slander and not libel?
-
Now you are deflecting.
By ignoring the bits of the post that were the argument.
If it wasn't almost verbatim how was it that I spotted the quote in the blog almost straight away. If you read the sentence in context, it clearly is referring to Israel. I called your assertion weasel words because you were hair splitting to try to make it look like Craig Murray didn't say what Simons claimed he said.
No, the important part in the context of this thread is that Craig Murray accused him of lying, when no reasonable person would call what Simons said a lie.
I see you subscribe to the Sass school of posting - repeating your assertions and putting them in bold still doesn't make them correct.
It's not hair splitting to point out that "and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world." and "Israel claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world" are not almost verbatim, for the reasons I gave above.
Murray claims he took Simons' misquote to mean that he (Murray) had written that the tribe of Israel - the Jewish people - claimed tribal superiority, hence he denied the accusation of writing that generalisation about Jewish people.
There are lots of Jewish people and people of Jewish heritage who don't subscribe to the theocratic view of tribal superiority, and moreover who are critics of Israel and despite their heritage could face accusations of anti-semitism for cirticising Israel - Christopher Hitchens made the point here http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128580&page=1
In the context of this thread, Murray can't however call Simons a liar on TV, if he is pursued in an action for libel, without proving that Simons deliberately lied i.e made a false accusation knowing it was false.
The important part in the context of this thread is that it is extremely difficult and expensive for Murray as the defendant in a libel trial to meet his burden of proof to show that Simons was making a false accusation knowing it was false, rather than misquoting out of context when he changed the subject of the quote from "an aggressive theocratic overlay " to "Israel" in order to accuse Murray of being anti-semitic. Murray quite rightly withdrew the lying accusation as in a libel action it is about what you can prove, and he could not prove Simons deliberately lied even if a jury was intelligent enough to see the difference between the 2 statements, especially as Murray had claimed he didn't write anything vaguely like it. A jury may well have focused on the last 10 words in the phrase rather than the first 7, even though changing the subject IMO changes the whole meaning of the phrase and makes the 2 statements not alike, and may have decided the 2 statements were vaguely alike. People have to be careful when using the words "vaguely like" on air as it's too, well vague, and it's already enough of a gamble with juries hearing libel trials.
His defence was however, going to address the misquote and taking words out of context issue.
-
You obviously didn't read the court documents. The claim of libel is all about Murray's statements that Simons lied on a TV programme. The transcript is there with the relevant parts underlined.
Evasion noted on the point you asked me to clarify about the difference between Israel and the concept of Israel. If you didn't want to discuss it - don't bring it up and ask me for an explanation. Simple.
You obviously didn't read the court documents. The words underlined are the words complained of and were made on TV and include the accusation that when people like Murray are critical of Israel and point out what is happening to the Palestinians, they are falsely accused of anti-semitism because there is a campaign to stop people fighting for the right of Palestinians by making them terrified that they will come on the media and be falsely accused of making anti-Semitic comments.
Paragraph 7 of Simons' claim for libel is that Murray's "subsequent blogpost redoubled the allegation that the Claimant [Simons] was party to a deliberate campaign to discredit supporters of the Palestinians as anti-semites."
-
Having re read this, does Craig live in England, or Scotland? If he lives in Scotland, then the Writ from the English Court cannot be served since he would be outside of the jurisdiction of the court, unless he consents, in which case he would seem to be making a rod for his own back.
Actually looking at the current laws, I think he was right to go with English jurisdiction, The Defamation Act 2013 makes this an easier case to defend than in Scotland where the law is still unreformed.
-
It's an odd one. I'm not sure the remarks could be taken as slander since they just say that he would say the joke is ok - even though it's anti semitic, I'm not sure you can take it that she was accusing him of anti-Semitism. Had she done so that it could be argued that it was since although there would be no actual damage it could be seen as slander based on the definition below;
•Where the slander is calculated to disparage you in any office, profession, calling trade or business held or carried on by you at the time of the publication;
•Where the slander is published of you in the way of your office or calling and is in relation to your conduct in that office or calling and imputes unfitness for or misconduct in that office or calling;
-
In your opinion have the libel laws moved on since his day?
Absolutely - most notably via the Defamation Act 2013.
It was attempted against Simon Singh.
A case which he won, so this is hardly supporting your argument.
Interestingly this is science-focus case. Now trawling around the web I have come across sites claiming that the scientific community feels that they cannot engage in free speech on scientific matters due to the libel laws. News to me. I have been part of that scientific community for several decades, including countless interactions with individual scientists, plus being on committees of scientific organisations that are likely to be significantly concerned were this the case. In all that time I cannot remember anyone expressing concern that the libel laws are restricting their ability to speak out on scientific matters - not once. I have been involved in discussions on other matters that seemed to restrict the ability of scientists and other academics to voice opinions within their professional realm (e.g. the recent Higher Education Bill - since revised) but never on libel.
-
I see you subscribe to the Sass school of posting - repeating your assertions and putting them in bold still doesn't make them correct.
You were wrong in exactly the same way second time round as the first time round. The reasons why you were wrong haven't changed, therefore I repeated them.
His defence.
You seem to think that somebody saying what their defence is going to be means that they are right.
-
Paragraph 7 of Simons' claim for libel is that Murray's "subsequent blogpost redoubled the allegation that the Claimant [Simons] was party to a deliberate campaign to discredit supporters of the Palestinians as anti-semites."
I accept that there is an underlined section relating to Murray's claim regarding discredit supporters of Israel - see end of section 4. However the entire claim is about lying rather than any other claim.
So if you look at sections 9 and 10, which focus on the 'harm' (which is a necessary requirement for libel) they are entirely about the accusation of lying, which the claimant suggests is particularly harmful to a professional journalist.
I know you want it to be about something else, but this libel case is entirely about Murray accusing Simon of lying (which he didn't as Murray subsequently accepted).
-
No, the important part in the context of this thread is that Craig Murray accused him of lying, when no reasonable person would call what Simons said a lie.
And indeed in due course Murray also accepted that it wasn't a lie.
-
You were wrong in exactly the same way second time round as the first time round. The reasons why you were wrong haven't changed, therefore I repeated them.
You seem to think that somebody saying what their defence is going to be means that they are right.
You seem to think repeating your assertions (without bold this time for a change) means that you are right. You're not.
It's logical to discuss a defence to a claim - it's called looking into both sides rather than just continuing with a one-sided claim. It happens a lot in the interests of fairness during a legal process - perhaps fairness is a new concept to you. In this instance we don't know the court's view as the two sides settled.
-
It's logical to discuss a defence to a claim - it's called looking into both sides rather than just continuing with a one-sided claim.
But the claim is that Murray called Simon a liar on live TV when that wasn't true. There is no defence, as both Simon, and indeed Murray accept that the claim was not true.
-
I accept that there is an underlined section relating to Murray's claim regarding discredit supporters of Israel - see end of section 4. However the entire claim is about lying rather than any other claim.
So if you look at sections 9 and 10, which focus on the 'harm' (which is a necessary requirement for libel) they are entirely about the accusation of lying, which the claimant suggests is particularly harmful to a professional journalist.
I know you want it to be about something else, but this libel case is entirely about Murray accusing Simon of lying (which he didn't as Murray subsequently accepted).
Your assertion about the claim, or rather what you want this entire claim to be about, is not supported by sections 9 and 10 of the claim, nor by the subsequent documents. The Particulars of Serious Harm, sections 9 and 10, talks about the Words Complained Of, which includes the allegation, repeated on the blog as mentioned in the court documents, that Simons was trying to discredit Palestinian supporters by accusing them of anti-Semitism.
-
Your assertion about the claim, or rather what you want this entire claim to be about, is not supported by sections 9 and 10 of the claim, nor by the subsequent documents. The Particulars of Serious Harm, sections 9 and 10, talks about the Words Complained Of, which includes the allegation, repeated on the blog as mentioned in the court documents, that Simons was trying to discredit Palestinian supporters by accusing them of anti-Semitism.
As I pointed out before the key claim was of lying - and indeed the only claim which is justified in libel terms, as for there to libel the statement must both be untrue and also harmful, and in the court documents the only references to harm are in relation to the lying. See section 5 and also 9. From section 9:
'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation. The seriousness of the sting of the defamatory words is particularly high given the profession of the person targeted.'
That is entirely about the accusation that Simon was lying.
-
But the claim is that Murray called Simon a liar on live TV when that wasn't true. There is no defence, as both Simon, and indeed Murray accept that the claim was not true.
The thread was about the libel case. A case has a claim and a defence, so the context of this thread is the claim and the defence.
The claim includes the accusation of lying and of being engaged in a witch hunt against critics of Israel - and the court documents state in Para 5 (which explains the Words Complained Of) that the particulars of the claim are that the Defendant made an accusation on TV that the Claimant made knowingly false accusations about the Defendant publishing a comment about Israel claiming tribal superiority and also that the Claimant wilfully lied about copying it from the Defendant's blog that morning and that the Claimant was engaged in a witch hunt of critics of Israel, by making accusations of anti-Semitism that he knew to be false.
Paragraph 5 was denied in Murray's defence documents. Murray did state in his blog that he was wrong to call Simons a liar and accepted Simons was not lying in the court documents. Calling someone a liar is almost impossible to defend in a libel action unless you can prove the person knowingly made a false statement, so from a legal proof standpoint Simons was not lying.
Considering the words of the settlement - By this statement, Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite - the case was about more than lying. There is no retraction to the witch hunt accusation and Murray has shown that false accusations of anti-semitism to shut down legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israel can be challenged.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/the-end-of-the-affair/
-
The thread was about the libel case. A case has a claim and a defence, so the context of this thread is the claim and the defence.
The claim includes the accusation of lying and of being engaged in a witch hunt against critics of Israel - and the court documents state in Para 5 (which explains the Words Complained Of) that the particulars of the claim are that the Defendant made an accusation on TV that the Claimant made knowingly false accusations about the Defendant publishing a comment about Israel claiming tribal superiority and also that the Claimant wilfully lied about copying it from the Defendant's blog that morning and that the Claimant was engaged in a witch hunt of critics of Israel, by making accusations of anti-Semitism that he knew to be false.
Paragraph 5 was denied in Murray's defence documents. Murray did state in his blog that he was wrong to call Simons a liar and accepted Simons was not lying in the court documents. Calling someone a liar is almost impossible to defend in a libel action unless you can prove the person knowingly made a false statement, so from a legal proof standpoint Simons was not lying.
Considering the words of the settlement - By this statement, Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite - the case was about more than lying. There is no retraction to the witch hunt accusation and Murray has shown that false accusations of anti-semitism to shut down legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israel can be challenged.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/11/the-end-of-the-affair/
Nope the claim as we see it - i.e. a claim from Simons that Murray libelled him is predicated on the basis that Murray called him a liar.
That the final settlement involves Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite is irrelevant to the original libel claim. I suspect (although we are not party to the discussions) that Murray, or his legal team, will have raised the possibility of a counter libel suit from Murray on the basis of a claim of anti-Semitism. But that was never the focus of the actual libel claim from Simons about Murray, which was about being accused of lying.
-
As I pointed out before the key claim was of lying - and indeed the only claim which is justified in libel terms, as for there to libel the statement must both be untrue and also harmful, and in the court documents the only references to harm are in relation to the lying. See section 5 and also 9. From section 9:
'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation. The seriousness of the sting of the defamatory words is particularly high given the profession of the person targeted.'
That is entirely about the accusation that Simon was lying.
You've only quoted the first part of section 9. As I pointed out the rest of section 9 goes on to talk about the harm caused by the Words Complained Of, which were underlined and then explained in section 5, and which includes the allegation that the Claimant was engaged in a witch hunt of critics of Israel by....etc etc - see my reply above for the wording.
Also, Murray's blog goes on to say "The wildly disproportionate effect of using a libel claim to bankrupt somebody and destroy their lives needs to be highlighted. This means for the wealthy to silence and ruin the poor needs to be exposed for what it is."
He also links to an interview by the Claimant's lawyer, "headlined “UK’s Foremost Libel Lawyer Sets His Sights on Israel’s Enemies.”. It characterises opponents of Israel as “Nazis” and opines “I am quite happy to take their homes off them… at least they can be a homeless Nazi.”
So the libel case is about more than lying.
-
Nope the claim as we see it - i.e. a claim from Simons that Murray libelled him is predicated on the basis that Murray called him a liar.
You can keep making whatever assertions you like. Section 5 of the claim and the preceding paragraph that underline the Words Complained Of show that the claim includes serious harm to reputation from the accusations of lying and the accusation that Simons was on a witch hunt of critics of Israel by trying to smear them as anti-semitic.
That the final settlement involves Mr Murray accepts that Dr Wallis Simons is not a liar, and Dr Wallis Simons accepts that Mr Murray is not an anti-Semite is irrelevant to the original libel claim. I suspect (although we are not party to the discussions) that Murray, or his legal team, will have raised the possibility of a counter libel suit from Murray on the basis of a claim of anti-Semitism. But that was never the focus of the actual libel claim from Simons about Murray, which was about being accused of lying.
Rubbish - where was Murray going to get the money for a counter libel suit? He was threatened with bankruptcy just trying to defend himself against this libel action because he did not have the money for lawyers in order to mount a legal defence.
That was the context of this thread - that libel actions are a way for rich people to shut up poor people.
-
You can keep making whatever assertions you like. Section 5 of the claim and the preceding paragraph that underline the Words Complained Of show that the claim includes serious harm to reputation from the accusations of lying and the accusation that Simons was on a witch hunt of critics of Israel by trying to smear them as anti-semitic.
But there is no claim of harm for the latter, the claim of harm is exclusively restricted to the former (i.e. lying) - libel requires both that the comment is not demonstrated to be true and also is harmful. Accordingly the 'smear them as anti-semitic' is not part of the libel as the claimant never suggests any harm.
-
But there is no claim of harm for the latter, the claim of harm is exclusively restricted to the former (i.e. lying) - libel requires both that the comment is not demonstrated to be true and also is harmful. Accordingly the 'smear them as anti-semitic' is not part of the libel as the claimant never suggests any harm.
I think there is a claim of harm for the latter. Para 9.1, which you quoted, refers to the lying. Para 9.3 (which for some reason labels 2 separate paragraphs) says - serious harm was caused, or was likely to be caused, by the Words Complained Of.
The Words Complained Of are more than just the accusation of lying.
-
I think there is a claim of harm for the latter. Para 9.1, which you quoted, refers to the lying. Para 9.3 (which for some reason labels 2 separate paragraphs) says - serious harm was caused, or was likely to be caused, by the Words Complained Of.
The Words Complained Of are more than just the accusation of lying.
section 9.3 referred to the gravity of the 'sting' (as described in 9.1), linked to the scale of the publication (i.e. national tv) - the 'sting' is described in 9.1 referred to as 'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation.'
-
section 9.3 referred to the gravity of the 'sting' (as described in 9.1), linked to the scale of the publication (i.e. national tv) - the 'sting' is described in 9.1 referred to as 'As a journalist and broadcaster, there are few more damaging allegations than of concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation.'
Yes the sting described in 9.1 includes concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation as you said. The concocting evidence allegation refers to Simons' evidence of Murray's alleged anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. And para 9.3 then refers to the gravity of the sting caused by the Words Complained Of by the Claimant in the last section of para 4.
The concocting evidence of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism allegation refers to the following Words Complained Of that Murray said on TV "What I do think is happening is that people like myself, who are critical of the State of Israel.... When we point out what is happening to the Palestinians, we are now accused - quite falsely - of anti-Semitism, because there is a campaign to stop people fighting for the rights of Palestinians because they are terrified of this witch-hunt, that people like myself - who have fought racism my entire life - come on the media and get accused of making anti-Semitic comments which we didn't make. We really are in the middle of a very, very difficult witch-hunt in the UK."
-
Yes the sting described in 9.1 includes concocting evidence or deliberately lying about the source of a quotation as you said. The concocting evidence allegation refers to Simons' evidence of Murray's alleged anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. And para 9.3 then refers to the gravity of the sting caused by the Words Complained Of by the Claimant in the last section of para 4.
The concocting evidence of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism allegation refers to the following Words Complained Of that Murray said on TV "What I do think is happening is that people like myself, who are critical of the State of Israel.... When we point out what is happening to the Palestinians, we are now accused - quite falsely - of anti-Semitism, because there is a campaign to stop people fighting for the rights of Palestinians because they are terrified of this witch-hunt, that people like myself - who have fought racism my entire life - come on the media and get accused of making anti-Semitic comments which we didn't make. We really are in the middle of a very, very difficult witch-hunt in the UK."
Yes I understand that very well.
But Simons' lawyers do no claim any harm from the part relating to the smear of anti-sematism. And if they aren't claiming any harm then they are in effect accepting there is no libel.
And actually the outcome demonstrates that in terms of the acceptance on each side. If as you claim Simons was claiming libel on 2 grounds:
1. That Murray accused him of lying when that was not true
2. That Murray accused him of smearing those who oppose Israel as bing anti-semitic
Then Murray would have had to accept both that Simons didn't lie (which he did) and that Simons was not involved in a smear campaign to stop people criticising Israel - which he didn't. His only retraction was that he lied - why - because that was the only statement that Simons lawyers claimed was libellous (i.e. untrue AND caused harm).
-
Yes I understand that very well.
But Simons' lawyers do no claim any harm from the part relating to the smear of anti-sematism. And if they aren't claiming any harm then they are in effect accepting there is no libel.
And actually the outcome demonstrates that in terms of the acceptance on each side. If as you claim Simons was claiming libel on 2 grounds:
1. That Murray accused him of lying when that was not true
2. That Murray accused him of smearing those who oppose Israel as bing anti-semitic
Then Murray would have had to accept both that Simons didn't lie (which he did) and that Simons was not involved in a smear campaign to stop people criticising Israel - which he didn't. His only retraction was that he lied - why - because that was the only statement that Simons lawyers claimed was libellous (i.e. untrue AND caused harm).
The concoction of evidence accusation in 9.1 relates to the claim that Simons had evidence that Murray was anti-Semitic. He did not have evidence of that and he stated that in the settlement when he stated that Murray was not anti-Semitic.
The outcome demonstrates nothing and Murray does not have to accept anything - the terms of the settlement are up to the parties to decide what they are prepared to accept and not accept. Simons decision to settle rather than pursue Murray in court for damages would probably have been based on various considerations - the costs of continuing, the likelihood of proving serious harm and balancing that against an assessment of what costs and damages are likely to be recovered by the side that wins.
Possibly some kind of pressure was put on Simons to settle - since Murray just repeated what he had said all along within a few days of the TV debate - that Simons was not a liar. Murray knew he would be unable to justify this accusation in court. Being called a liar is normally considered defamation by the courts unless the defendant can prove the statement he called a lie was false and prove the claimant knew it was false when he made it.
Or Simons may have thought that the whole ordeal would have been enough to put some people off from publicly criticising Israel or defending Palestinian rights, without having to go through the time, effort and costs of a court case. That Simons has stated that Murray is not an anti-Semite leaves Murray free to continue criticising Israel on his blog and on TV.
-
The concoction of evidence accusation in 9.1 relates to the claim that Simons had evidence that Murray was anti-Semitic. He did not have evidence of that and he stated that in the settlement when he stated that Murray was not anti-Semitic.
The outcome demonstrates nothing and Murray does not have to accept anything - the terms of the settlement are up to the parties to decide what they are prepared to accept and not accept. Simons decision to settle rather than pursue Murray in court for damages would probably have been based on various considerations - the costs of continuing, the likelihood of proving serious harm and balancing that against an assessment of what costs and damages are likely to be recovered by the side that wins.
Possibly some kind of pressure was put on Simons to settle - since Murray just repeated what he had said all along within a few days of the TV debate - that Simons was not a liar. Murray knew he would be unable to justify this accusation in court. Being called a liar is normally considered defamation by the courts unless the defendant can prove the statement he called a lie was false and prove the claimant knew it was false when he made it.
Or Simons may have thought that the whole ordeal would have been enough to put some people off from publicly criticising Israel or defending Palestinian rights, without having to go through the time, effort and costs of a court case. That Simons has stated that Murray is not an anti-Semite leaves Murray free to continue criticising Israel on his blog and on TV.
Blimey you really are in conspiracy theory mode aren't you.
So Simons somehow concocted the whole situation and threw in allegations of libel in order to ensure that critics of Israel were silenced and the public wouldn't hear those kinds of views again.
One slight problem in your argument - whenever there is a high profile libel case the view expressed are amplified massively - people who might never have seen to debate, read the blog, seen the article see about it in the mainstream media.
So actually the very worst thing you can do if you want to stop the public hearing one type of view is to try to shut it up via libel.
Two examples - one mentioned previously the other new.
First - the Simon Singh case - how many people would have read his original article - very few - how many came to know about his views via the libel case - huge numbers.
The second - perhaps the most famous of all - the so-called McLibel case involving a information sheet distributed by London Greenpeace activists on London streets - how many people would have actually seen the leaflet - virtually none. How many people came to know of their views due to the libel case - millions.
The point about a libel case is that it doesn't silence the views, quite the reverse it requires the views to be disseminated time and time again as the proceedings proceed.
-
Blimey you really are in conspiracy theory mode aren't you.
So Simons somehow concocted the whole situation and threw in allegations of libel in order to ensure that critics of Israel were silenced and the public wouldn't hear those kinds of views again.
One slight problem in your argument - whenever there is a high profile libel case the view expressed are amplified massively - people who might never have seen to debate, read the blog, seen the article see about it in the mainstream media.
So actually the very worst thing you can do if you want to stop the public hearing one type of view is to try to shut it up via libel.
Two examples - one mentioned previously the other new.
First - the Simon Singh case - how many people would have read his original article - very few - how many came to know about his views via the libel case - huge numbers.
The second - perhaps the most famous of all - the so-called McLibel case involving a information sheet distributed by London Greenpeace activists on London streets - how many people would have actually seen the leaflet - virtually none. How many people came to know of their views due to the libel case - millions.
The point about a libel case is that it doesn't silence the views, quite the reverse it requires the views to be disseminated time and time again as the proceedings proceed.
I was talking about the possible reasons why Simons decided to settle rather than continue with the libel case in court. I was not arguing that there was a conspiracy to make accusations on TV in order to engineer a libel case.
But you’re right about the massive amplification - a possible reason for Simons settling out of court could be that the court case might publicise Israel’s illegal settlement building, land appropriation, and it’s racism and human rights violations against the Palestinians.
-
It's logical to discuss a defence to a claim
We have discussed the defence. The idea that Craig's accusation was true has been found wanting. Personally, I think he had a better defence based on the lack of serious harm.
-
But you’re right about the massive amplification - a possible reason for Simons settling out of court could be that the court case might publicise Israel’s illegal settlement building, land appropriation, and it’s racism and human rights violations against the Palestinians.
No, I doubt if that had anything to do with it. Of course, it does seem to be what you want it to be about.