Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I guess this answer my PM question:
From Sullivan
- Some things are worth reiterating. The libel verdict won by Saddam-supporter George Galloway does not depend on the notion that Galloway's ties to Saddam were disproven. They haven't been. Nor was this case decided by a jury. The case was won because, in the judge's view, the Telegraph had not given Galloway sufficient time or space to respond to the charges:
Such a judgment wouldn't stand a chance in an American court - but then Britain's libel laws are far tougher than America's; and there's far less freedom of speech in the UK than in the U.S. Here's the Telegraph's official response. It's deeply depressing. The verdict stands regardless of whether the story is proven true or not.
Repeat. ENLIGHTENED_EUROPEANS
|
While the difference between English and U.S. libel law is considerable, I find iit hard to believe that an English judge awarded Galloway that much money absent some sense that the story was not accurate. But I don't know anything more about it.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
