Dispatches from the Culture Wars

re #1: Good question, great answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VjOK2pwOCQ

Posted by: Emory K. | October 6, 2009 10:12 AM

Yet another reason I just wouldn't do well in the UK, in spite of being a rather hardcore Anglophile. While I can totally relate to not wanting Benny Hinn about, I am not interested in dealing with restrictions like that. Or having to watch what I say, for fear of being sued into shutting the fuck up.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2009 11:04 AM

@DuWayne

Having been to the UK a half dozen times I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. What "restrictions" are you thinking of?

Posted by: yoshi | October 6, 2009 11:21 AM

For one, apparently requiring a visiting evangelist to have a letter of sponsorship from a church.

Unless there's more to this than I'm getting, it sounds like a mundane immigration/work permit issue. Countries have a right to ask what you're coming there for, eg. tourism or business. An invited speaker sounds like the latter, so they'll want to know who invited you (we'd need a UK lawyer to tell us exactly what the problem was).

Not to say that there isn't always some stupid bureaucratic BS associated with immigration, in the UK, or anyplace else.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 6, 2009 11:35 AM

Benny Hinn did not speak to the crowd via Live Video but talked through the phone. And miracles took place when he prayed the for the sick and also after the call more miracles happened. And also before the service ended.... he called again. So no one felt dissapointed for him not making it to the service and the building was packed with an enthuastic crowd. It wasn't his fault he couldn't make it.... he had no idea about it.....

Posted by: No Name | October 6, 2009 12:39 PM

No Name - please validate your assertion that "miracles took place" with convincing empirical evidence.

All the evidence currently points towards a bunch of delusional sheeple getting conned out of their money by a not very bright shyster.

Posted by: Michael Heath | October 6, 2009 1:23 PM

The regulations treat preaching as work, simple as that. What's the problem? Why is that a deal-breaking restriction?

Actually Robin, that isn't. First, I assumed incorrectly that he was being restricted for extremism - that is what I get for not reading the article. I actually don't have a problem with it being a work permit type issue. I do however, have issues with the extremist laws. First, because I am pretty much a freedom of speech and religion absolutist and second, because I think it is much better to let the extremists operate in the open, respond to them and let law enforcement keep an eye on them.

But none of this is the deal breaker - it's just icing on the cake of absolutely insane libel laws, which are.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2009 2:15 PM

"And miracles took place ... he called again..."

Could the miracles be that despite this slimeball hinn's best efforts, most of the people left with their wallets mostly intact?

Posted by: dean | October 6, 2009 4:02 PM

@Duwayne:

But none of this is the deal breaker - it's just icing on the cake of absolutely insane libel laws, which are.

Essentially, the UK libel laws say that if you are going to accuse somebody of something, you'd better have some good evidence. The fact that they are famous doesn't mean you get to take evidence-free potshots. There are marginal issues, and for example I'm not keen on Eadie J's decision in Singh, but broadly I don't see a problem with that. What is the problem from your point of view? Specifically, why is that "insane"?

@Chris A:

That is not unique to UK libel law.

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 6, 2009 6:03 PM

@DuWayne #19:

I've already said I'm not happy about Eadie J's decision in Singh; it was a poor decision on the facts, in my view. Let's see what happens on appeal.

As for:

It is insane that someone can actually lose a suit when they wrote or said something that was true. It is insane that someone who is sued for saying something that is true and wins, does not automatically get a ruling for the other side to pay their fucking legal expenses.

Wow. Just wow. A little reality: in the UK (I believe Scots law is identical to English in this) if you write something true, and establish that in court - you win. You win - you get paid your costs. Bear in mind that in the good ol' USA you don't have "loser pays" in civil suits before you criticise the UK by comparison.

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 6, 2009 6:37 PM

Robin -

First, it has to be established in court by the person who wrote it, that it was true - that is good and fucked to start with. Were I living in the UK and were I to be sued, I am going to be stuck trying to pay an attorney to take my case and to get through the entire process. So even if I am wrong about loser pays there (I based that on UK bloggers who wrote about the linked case), I am still fucked until I actually get through the whole process - IF I can even get an attorney, which is a big if for people who don't have a lot of money to spare.

But, I wouldn't need an attorney here. Someone deciding to bring a suit against me, would have to show that I was lying about them, knew I was lying and was doing so with malicious intent. The thing is, I don't lie about people and when I discover that I said something about someone that is untrue, I apologize publicly and retract the statement.

And a lot of states have anti-SLAPP statutes, though unfortunately MI does not. However, it is still at a judge's discretion to award attorney's fees to defendants who are sued frivolously and they frequently do. But again, it is irrelevant, because bullshit libel suits are generally dismissed out of hand.

And why should the burden of proof bee on me to prove I'm not a motherfucker, if that's the accusation you choose to level against me?

Personally, I think your something of an asshole, but that is a subjective opinion, not a fact. Motherfucker is also a subjective opinion, certainly not a factual claim against someone. Are you saying that you can sue someone in the UK, for insulting you? Because quite honestly, that is even more fucking ridiculous.

But lets say "feminist" Donna Hughes decided she didn't like my characterizing her as being the no different than anti-sex misogynists in the religious right (with examples) - so she decided to sue me. Why the fuck should I have to even show up in court? Why should I have to spend five minutes digging up comparisons? Let her argue it to a judge and let him laugh her ass out of court - why should I have to get an attorney and waste months and months on that kind of frivolous fucking bullshit?

Shouldn't the burden be on - you know - the person who made the story up?

No. Because if it isn't true, it should be pretty easy to show it isn't true. At the very least, if there is reason to believe it isn't true, then the burden is shifted onto the person being accused of libel - such as someone choosing to seriously accuse someone else of rape and murder.

It is no different in the States, as you should know.

It doesn't even compare. Unless there is a suit with a likelihood of merit, it generally doesn't go anywhere. When it does people get pissed about it and companies often apologize for it. About the only area ISPs and publishers and the like cave, is when it's the fucking government doing the asking or threatening - and that is why I use Google - at least they require a fucking warrant.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2009 7:30 PM

By the way, Brits can and do say mean and untruthful things about celebrities and politicians all the time without getting sued for it, so let's not go too overboard with slamming the libel laws. How else could shows like "Mock the Week" and "The News Quiz" exist?

Posted by: tacitus | October 6, 2009 7:56 PM

tacitus -

Please explain to me, how one can defend libel laws that allow - for example, the situation in the link I provided? Or laws that allow the case that Robin cited to more forward?

The police overstep their bounds over here on occasion - no doubt. But what they are doing is illegal and I am hopeful that we are inching forward, bit by bit, to change that. But the key is that what they are doing is illegal and each lawsuit against these fucking morons is making it less likely the fucking morons up the road are going to do the same stupid thing.

As for restricting Hinn, I am well aware he isn't a citizen. I am also just fine with him being kept out due to work permit type issues. I do have a problem with the idea of keeping someone out soley because they are radicals. Not my country, so I cannot concern myself with it overmuch, but it is a bloody stupid fucking policy for several reasons, not the least being when they are there openly, you can actually watch them - and see who is watching them. When you force them underground, you don't know what they are doing or where they are, because you aren't even aware they are there - until they decide to make their presence known in extremely nasty ways.

The answer to radical hate speech, is to answer it, not try to prevent it from happening.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 6, 2009 8:35 PM

The police overstep their bounds over here on occasion - no doubt. But what they are doing is illegal and I am hopeful that we are inching forward, bit by bit, to change that. But the key is that what they are doing is illegal and each lawsuit against these fucking morons is making it less likely the fucking morons up the road are going to do the same stupid thing.

You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about police misconduct, I'm talking about extremely punitive sentencing and aggressive prosecutions that takes place in America, along with things like three strikes laws, states with no parole, putting consenting teenagers on sex-offender lists for life, and on and on.

Britain has about the highest incarceration rate in Western Europe, but the USA beats that, not by 50%, or 100%, but by 400%---that's five times as much! Can the British libel laws be improved? I'm no expert, but I'm sure that they can. But it makes absolutely no sense to claim that this alone makes the UK a less desirable place to live in terms of the types of laws you're living under.

There are maybe a handful of controversial libel cases in the UK each year (the Private Eye magazine is usually in the mix somewhere!) whereas there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are languishing today in jail who would likely not be under a less insane judicial system. I lived in the UK for 30 years and still spend over a month there every year, and I haven't heard of a single friend, relative, acquaintance, or even friend of a friend who has ever been sued for libel.

I'd be willing to wager that you could speak and blog as aggressively as you do in the US and the odds would still be extremely remote that you would ever get sued for libel. So to reject the idea of living there based on some imagined draconian legal system that won't allow you to speak freely is simply ridiculous hyperbole.

Posted by: tacitus | October 6, 2009 9:15 PM

@DuWayne #22:

Quick post - work beckons.

Two points:

Unless you're famous, you don't even know your own libel laws, so I can't see how you become qualified to comment on UK laws (and point me at a UK legal blogger who's said that loser pays doesn't apply here - it's the main civilising factor here as compared with the deep pocket wins principle applying in the USA).

Two; "motherfucker" as an insult is mere vulgar abuse, no libel. "Motherfucker as an accusation is a pretty nasty claim; or have you used it as an insult so long that you have forgotten that words do have meanings. Perhaps it's because it isn't a popular insult over here...

And three (yes, lawyers can't count); how exactly would I go about proving I'm not a motherfucker (if that is the accusation>/b>)? It's easy, you say, so you must know?

And four: are you suggesting that the US courts are inquisitorial rather than adversarial?

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 7, 2009 2:54 AM

UK immigration is constantly changing, however it doesn't change that much that you don't need a visa befor you travel

Posted by: Niall | October 7, 2009 4:06 AM

Don't do it, DuWayne. Their curry is oddly coloured and their electricity is ten hertz too few!

Posted by: Modusoperandi | October 7, 2009 7:28 AM

@DuWayne:

1 Don't be a passive/aggressive arsehole;

2 It's a bitch when natives of the country you criticise show up and force you actually to learn something before you start criticising, isn't it.

3 The UK isn't a paradise on earth, and there are things I probably agree with you on relating to its libel laws; but that doesn't mean uninformed Americans get to take free potshots.

4 "The answer to radical hate speech, is to answer it, not try to prevent it from happening." How's that working in the US; the overall idea (of which this is an instance) that truth drives out lies, I mean? You don't have any significant membership in racist organisations like the KKK or Aryan Nations, do you? Nobody believes the birther crap either, do they - certainly it isn't promoted by any talk-show hosts on national TV, or believed by any significant proportion of, say, the GOP. That must be because once the truth is out there, the lies shrivel up in the disinfectant of free speech.

I see free speech as valuable; but just as even in your country there are laws restricting the use of the bears your constitution permits you to arm - basically where that use starts to damage me - so I don't have a problem with laws preventing you from using free speech to damage me.

Speaking truth to power is a fine and worthy ideal; speaking lies about the powerless, not so much. Words do have power, but to suggest that truth has some unique quality that enables it to triumph against untruth is to deny the evidence of decades of US politics. You've got to the position that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Bek are treated as infallible oracles by such a large proportion of your fellow countrymen that your GOP leaders are frightened to go up against them; and your Democrats are scared of doing anything that might look bad in the "meejuh".

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 7, 2009 7:54 AM

Can I apologise? some of us Brits do quite like the idea of free(er) speech and don't mind allies from the wrong side of the Atlantic pitching in.

Posted by: Matty | October 7, 2009 8:40 AM

Unless you're famous, you don't even know your own libel laws,

Posted by: James Hanley | October 7, 2009 8:46 AM

@DuWayne:

You really ought to read what I wrote, not what you think or hope I wrote.

I too have issues with British libel law - along the same lines as the legal bloggers to whom you have referred. Jack of Kent, whom you may read, I have a great deal of respect for and know quite well through Skeptics in the Pub.

The major difference between us appears to be our respective views on who gets to prove whether a lie is a lie - I say the person who put it out there, you say the person lied about. I disagree, and tried to explain in terms relevant to the Second Amendment to your Constitution (and to Glenn Bek).

I have not suggested you don't have a leg to stand on because your country does something I find distasteful; I have suggested you don't have a leg to stand on because you don't seem to be informed on either British or US libel law. Your ignorance that the loser pays principle applies in the UK is but one of the misconceptions.

Again, I didn't "take offense" [sic] because you don't like the UK's libel laws; I pointed out that in many respects you simply don't seem to know about what you are talking, and were criticising the libel laws without actually knowing what they are. There is a difference.

In the US, you suggest, an unmeritorious libel claim will be thrown out without any need for the participation of the Defendant. That just isn't the case. That is why you have anti-SLAPP legislation in your country; but anti-SLAPP applications must still be made by the Defendant, and are broadly equivalent, so far as I can see, to applications to strike out as disclosing no real prospect of success in the UK. Loser pays, by the way - so a failed anti-SLAPP motion means the defendant pays the Plaintiff's costs, whatever the eventual outcome of the claim.

The First Amendment Resource Center reckons that:

Every year, thousands of people are sued for participating in government or for speaking out on public issues. SLAPP targets have been sued for engaging in a wide variety of protected speech and protected expression activities...

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html

so the anti-SLAPP provisions don't make so much of a difference as you believe.

You claimed that a Plaintiff in a US libel claim must show both intentional lying and malice on the part of the Defendant; but that isn't true unless the Plaintiff is famous. Indeed, intentional lying would go to show malice, but isn't (so far as I am aware) necessary even where the Plaintiff is famous.

On Singh I believe that Eadie J's decision was wrong on both facts and law; but Simon is appealing. We can revisit it once the appeals process has ended.

On the Society of Homeopaths case; the ISP was weaselly, and shouldn't have caved. There should be more protections in UK law for ISPs - but I don't believe they would have made a ha'porth of difference to the behaviour of this ISP.

More generally, the US generally seems to fetishise free speech. We in Europe are continually criticised by Americans for placing restrictions on speech, on the basis that free speech is necessary to prevent a number of evils; which lo and behold still turn up in the States despite your commitment to free speech - and arguably because of that fetishisation.

As for your claim that you are happy to take my criticism of your country with grace; re-read your flounce #33 and get back to me.

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 7, 2009 9:02 AM

Wow, this comment thread turned into the anti-Fark.

Anyway, for all actual and very lamentable flaws in the British legal system (or, The Hon. Mr Justice Eady – to give him his proper title), it's still pretty hard to recognise reality of life in this country from some of the comments seen on-line.

I've lost count of the number of 'sceptical' people for whom it is practically an article of faith that Simon Singh has lost a libel case brought against him for saying homeopaths practice bogus treatments. Or that the issue in the Funding Evil case is one of pure free speech, rather than more an issue of libel tourism. Unless you believe in no restrictions on speech, I would think that naming someone as a financial backer of terrorists is a claim for which there might be legitimate legal consequences (clearly some people do believe there should be no such restrictions, but they seem to be far rarer than people hyperbolically claiming that the UK has become a weird mixture of Airstrip One and a kindergarten).

The original story is quite amusing, as others have pointed out, these stricter border controls on travelling evangelists were a result of fear of ‘Radical Islamists™’ coming over here and corrupting our youth; I don’t think that the (largely right wing) media outlets that pushed this line ever considered it might rebound negatively for Christians, even less on white people (hey Melanie Phillips, paybacks a bitch, ain’t it?) Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that.

//Also, a system that keeps out Bennie Hine on a technicality is preferable to one that keeps out Cat Stevens as a matter of policy.
/Everyone jump upon the peace train…

Posted by: Aj | October 7, 2009 9:17 AM

@James Hanley:

Me:

Unless you're famous, you don't even know your own libel laws

You:

I don't want to wade into this debate, but, Robin, what does this even mean? Only the wealthy can know U.S. libel law?

It's probably clear from my last reply to DuWayne, but: He claimed that it would be necessary to prove malice on the part of someone who defamed him to succeed in a libel claim in the US. Sullivan made that a requirement for defamation of public (sc. "famous") figures; but not for the ordinary Joe. So, unless DuWayne is famous, he wouldn't need to prove malice on the part of someone who defamed him to succeed in a libel claim. He would need to prove he had stopped beating his wife, of course, but that's another issue.

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 7, 2009 9:20 AM

Look, I love free speech and have no problem with "legit" religiosity. But we're talking about Benny FUCKING Hinn, for fuck's sake./s

Posted by: democommie | October 7, 2009 11:31 AM

You know what - it was a bad idea for me to even argue. I do not have time to look for citations that back my assertions and really don't care that much.

While there is a great deal that I admire about the UK, I have very serious issues with freedom of expression issues there. That is not to say that my country is perfect, just that a) I am more comfortable with our laws and b) more comfortable with our constitution, as endangered as it may be.

Posted by: DuWayne | October 7, 2009 12:17 PM

KevinJ,

For the third time, I meant to write EU, not UK. Thanks for the lesson I already knew (see my comment @45), but I was never actually referring to the UK.

Other than that, nothing in your argument refutes anything I said. In the US, we shifted control over movement from the state level to the national level. In the EU it's shifted from the national level to the "supranational" level, and now people in Berlin aren't so worried about immigrants from France, but shit their pants over immigrants from Turkey or Morocco.

So clearly we can play around with what level we assign that control to, and we can set it above the level of the nation. So if we can do a supranational level for the EU, it's certainly possible to posit doing it at the continental level for Europe, or North America, etc. Then we U.S.A.ians would stop worrying about immigrants from Guadalajara moving to L.A., but would still fret over the ones from Honduras. In Germany they'd stop--if they haven't already--worrying about immigrants from France and focus their fears (as they're currently doing) on the influx of Turks.

Then after a time we might build up to controlling movement at the supracontinental level, say "The Americas" or "Eurasia." Then we'd have "The Americans" no longer worrying about immigration between, say, Rio and Denver, while still stressing over the "hordes" of Asians or Africans. Likewise, Eurasians would have quit worrying about Turks and Armenians, but might still be stressed out over immigrants from Africa.

Then after another period of time we kick it up to the supra-supracontinental level...

Point being, where is the logical stopping point? It's clearly not, as we have all thought for so long, at the national level, as the Europeans are showings us. And above that it's just whatever happens to be the top-most political agglomeration we've so far achieved. And if you think supra-supra continental agglomerations are unthinkable, just consider how unthinkable the current EU was a mere 60 years ago.

It doesn't have to be "based" on any libertarian principle. The magic is that regardless of the underlying principles it furthers a libertarian ideal--the free movement of people across borders. Granted, most libertarians would prefer it to be without any such thing as the state, but I'm a bit more realistic and pragmatic than the Ron Paul teeth-gnashers.

Posted by: James Hanley | October 7, 2009 5:47 PM

@Eamon:

On libel laws: The problem is not British Libel Laws. The problem is English Libel Laws.

There are 3 legal areas in the UK: English, Northern Irish and Scottish.

Indeed, and I'm normally hot on the distinction; but they are, so far as I am aware, sufficiently similar in relation to defamation by comparison to USA defamation law to treat them as a single entity. The main distinguishing factor does appear to be that on this side of the Atlantic we require a defamer to prove the truth of the defamation, whereas in the States the defamed has to prove untruth.

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 8, 2009 1:59 AM

@Gingeryellow:

Actually, I'd argue the main difference is in claims of jurisdiction.

That is a very recent development indeed, but perhaps less significant than it is claimed. The UK rule is that where reputational damage is caused here by someone who has chosen to use a global medium to disseminate his publication that someone can be sued here. The US courts say that you have to look to the intent of the publisher to publish in a specific jurisdiction, and the choice of a global medium doesn't satisfy that test even where damage in the jurisdiction is shown.

The fundamental difference is that the US court seem to think that it is relevant where the publishers servers are located, whereas in the UK it is recognised that the defamation occurs where and when someone downloads the text from those servers.

The absence of malice issue would be much less of an issue if the defamee did not have the burden of proving falsity. As you say, though, the Reynolds defence does cover the same ground. I agree with Jack of Kent that the extension of qualified privilege as of right not necessarily to all journalism but to certain areas would serve a useful purpose.

There have, by the way, been several successful uses of the Reynolds defence - which of course doesn't include the case itself, where the newspaper lost.

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 8, 2009 8:02 AM

@Dylan Llyr:

First - I don't disagree that UK libel law needs some reform.

On Ehrenfeld; the book was published in the UK via online bookshops about Claimants who did business in London at the time of publication. Is it all foreigners, or just Saudis, whom you say shouldn't be allowed access to UK courts to prevent damage to their reputation and interests in the UK?

The Court found the allegations false - so Ehrenfeld either lied or simply got it wrong - yet sought to continue to publish.

The major remedy sought and granted was an injunction preventing continued publication of the ex hypothesi lie; a remedy which is only really of much effect if obtained before significant sales were achieved.

Would it make a difference to you if they had been Welsh emigrés who had retained business interests in London but spent much of their time in Patagonia? Or if 26,000 copies had been sold?

On the burden of proof; what exactly is your argument that it is "skewed completely"? That the person making the allegations has to justify them?

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 8, 2009 10:05 AM

But it was not published in the UK; it was imported by a couple of dozen private individuals. If this means you give British courts the right to censor its contents then where does the insanity end? What if a tourist brings the book with him into the country and sells it to a charity bookshop? Such a system is open to all kinds of abuse, never mind nonsensical on principle.

Ehrenfeld chose not to defend herself on principle; the only way in which it could be said she "lost" the case was because the British legal onus was on her to defend her claims, which she declined to bother to do since she rejects the court's jurisdiction in the first place.

The burden of proof is skewed since it allows wealthy individuals to shut little investigators up with the mere threat of ligitation. Even if they're spot on it could be ruinous to have to go through the whole court process.

Posted by: Dylan Llyr | October 8, 2009 11:04 AM

More importantly - does this mean we have to take him back?

Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 8, 2009 11:57 AM

@Dylan #60:

The burden of proof is skewed since it allows wealthy individuals to shut little investigators up with the mere threat of ligitation.

Which is a problem in both jurisdictions - worse in the States, perhaps, because of the general lack of "loser pays" costs rules - and is by no means unique to libel. Try being a small software developer with a product that Microsoft wants. Screwing around with the burden of proof isn't in my view the answer, though - it is not effective, because SLAPP suits still happen in the States and possibly are more numerous there than here; and is is objectionable in principle to ask the victim - say the small guy libelled by a newspaper owned by a billion-dollar multinational corporation - to take on the burden of proving a negative.

If you're the little guy slimed by Bek, what recourse do you have? To do the same back?

Posted by: Robin Levett | October 9, 2009 2:51 AM