Libel

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

"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....

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

His notion?

Sorry - typo - mean 'this notion'

[jeremyp]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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 Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

[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.

[Rhiannon]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.