Libel Tourism Case Dismissed Because Little Evidence Of UK Visitors Seeing The Article

from the nice-try dept

We've discussed how the UK is used for "libel tourism" quite frequently, since its libel laws are more draconian than elsewhere. Thus, if someone is upset about what someone else has said about them, they'll often file a lawsuit in the UK, arguing that because the content is available online, it's been "published" in the UK. Thankfully, the UK courts have been a bit better about cracking down on these sorts of cases when they're obviously frivolous. In one recent case, the court rejected the claim by noting that there was little evidence many people in the UK saw the article, which was published in a South African publication. Specific evidence over how many UK readers viewed that article were not provided, but log files showed that only a grand total of 65 readers viewed the article at all over the 2 months following publication (so you could even say that if all 65 were in the UK, the "damage" was pretty limited). But, the publication did show that its site normally gets about 6.79% of its visitors from the UK, which would translate to about 4 UK visitors -- not nearly enough to prove "publication" in the UK. It's good to see the UK courts being a bit more careful about these things, though it would still be much better if the UK updated its outdated libel laws to avoid this kind of lawsuit altogether.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 9:00pm

    So what happens when the Strisand effect comes into play and more folks from the UK view the said article?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Charlie Potatoes, Nov 16th, 2009 @ 9:12pm


    I think everyone in the UK should be put on an island somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pete Austin, Nov 17th, 2009 @ 2:28am

    Nothing wrong with UK Libel Law in this case.
    (1) This looks like a SLAPP lawsuit, intended to harass the writer, judging by the email excerpts quoted in the referenced article, rather than one based on a specific law.
    (2) Libel/Slander only matters if it is causes damage, which this didn't. For example insults don't count. See the note in the referenced article, about how a related lawsuit was thrown out.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), Nov 17th, 2009 @ 5:56am

    UK Libel law reform

    Simon Singh's case was pretty much a SLAPP suit as well. At least he is given leave to appeal, but it should have been thrown out as well.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.