Intimidation via libel

[Andrew Crystall]

UK libel law is a tricky thing. Unlike in many countries, if you host 
a comment and have editing power over it, you can be held liable 
alongside the author of a statement. Even linking to potentially 
libellous comments can be hold to be distributing them, and is a 
fresh offence of libel.

There is a defence of truth, but it is tricky and something the 
defendant has to prove, rather than complainant. Usually other 
defences are used, such as "fair comment" or public interest, but 
these can be qualified by various factors and context can change 
remarks from libelous to not.

You need to, thus, under UK law be willing to edit online certain 
negative statements about litigious businesses such as the Church of 
Scientology, who are major users of the current law.

Of course, some people take it too far. Charles Stross, on his blog, 
has recently been editing out any negative reference whatsoever to 
Scientology, going far and away beyond what the law requires. That's 
censorship, and it serves simply to encourage the abuse of the libel 
law in the UK.

We need to fix UK libel law, but we should also note the people who 
allready go above and beyond, and boycott them until they mend their 
ways.

Andrew Crystall
GSV Support Anon