At 01:57 PM 04/01/2000 -0500, John Young wrote:
>All this took place under strict British libel law. US experts say
>that such cases would be very difficult to win under US law.
On the other hand, today's papers report that David Irving, the
Holocaust-denying history-reviser, lost his libel lawsuit against
some people who wrote about him and the inaccuracy of his propaganda.
British libel law doesn't have the assumption that's evolved in
American law that truth is an adequate defense against libel accusations.
(No surprise, since it largely originated in the Zenger case,
where Zenger's true but negative comments were printed about the
British governor of New York, who sued and the jury acquitted.)
Irving brought his suit before a judge, who apparently came to the
conclusion that when most of the public believes you're a
lying Nazi scum, there's no damage to your good name and reputation
if somebody writes out in great detail how big your lies were and
how scummy it was of you to tell them; and if anything it enhances
your reputation among your fellow Nazi sympathizers, so go stuff it.
He's now liable for the defendants' legal costs, which were substantial;
the paper said he brought his case himself without a lawyer.
So free speech doesn't always lose in British libel, though
the balance may be far enough to the guilty-guilty-guilty side that
it takes an exceptional case to remind us.
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
