Will Clinton, Berger & Albright Threaten BBC With Libel Suit?

[Hissyspit]

From Americablog:

Will Clinton, Berger and Albright threaten the BBC with a libel suit?
by John in DC - 9/09/2006 12:48:00 AM

As you know, the BBC is planning to show Disney/ABC's defamatory "Path to 9/11" program in the UK on Sunday. I'm told by a friend that under UK libel laws there is no public person defense and damages and costs can both be in the millions. And*, "British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant must prove that she or he did not commit libel."

My friend notes, and I agree, that if the BBC were to receive a letter like the one that Clinton's lawyer, Berger, and Albright sent to ABC, the BBC legal department would likely be in a state of high panic. The chances are that they would yank the program immediately.

If the BBC were to do that it would be much harder for ABC to show the program and if they did they would find it much harder to claim that it was based on fact.

Yes, it would be very interesting if someone who knows Clinton, Berger and Albright suggested this to them.

* Great Britain's Position:

Material published on the web falls under the same libel laws as material published in any other medium. The British libel laws differs from American libel laws in approach: British libel laws are considered pro-plaintiff, meaning that the defendant must prove that she or he did not commit libel. This is the opposite of American libel law, which places the burden of proof upon the plaintiff to show that the alleged libelous statement contained malice and caused damage.

The Defamation Act of 1996 holds Internet service providers responsible for what they publish under British libel laws, albeit in only a very limited scope. This act does not hold Internet service providers responsible if they are not primarily responsible for material in question.

The Defamation Act is looked upon by British lawmakers as a way of limiting potential libel lawsuits. The act will make libel cases cheaper and more quickly resolvable:

The act will allow judges to suggest money damages and offer Internet Service providers the option of apologizing to the plaintiff and paying him or her the money damages.

Defendants will also be able to offer amends under the defense of "innocent dissemination."

Defendants will be able to reduce their damages if they can prove that the plaintiff has a general bad reputation

http://www-cs-education.stanford.edu/classes/cs201/Projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/worldwide/britain.html

[formercia]

1. Canadian television also plans to show it

There was an ad on CBC last light promoting the Mockumentary.

[nine23]

4. RE: "Canadian television also plans to show it..."

Nope. I think you're thinking of "The Secret History of 9/11", a documentary directed by Canadian documentarian Terence McKenna (with, I'm happy to say, heavily involving Richard Clarke's take on matters...)

I'm also happy to say none of the major Canadian networks have picked it up, which is kind of a moot point anyway: we get both ABC and BBC analogue/terrestrial (or whatever it's called...ie. free/not "pay" at the bottom of the dial.) So, if anybody here wants to see it, they can. :puke:

[elare]

5. I think you're mistaken

Sunday night lineup for CBC is:

7:00 p.m. The Secret History of 9/11 - The dramatic, minute-by minute account of the biggest terrorist crime in history - revealing intrigue, desperate pursuit, and chaos in the highest reaches of power.

9:00 p.m. 9/11: Toxic Legacy - examines the environmental fallout of 9/11, the resulting health dangers, and what this still means for people working and living in downtown New York.

On CBC Newsworld, the Passionate Eye is showing the documentary "Why We Fight".

On Monday, the Passionate Eye is re-running the documentary "9/11 - The Falling Man" and the main CBC network is showing the Canadian Country Music Awards.

Perhaps your TV wasn't on CBC?

[formercia]

6. Even if I was wrong

I'm still glad I pointed it out. It will be interesting to see what their portrayal is.

[vickitulsa]

2. I want to keep seeing more about this

until ABC and the makers/promotors of this outrageous film are exposed so widely it becomes common knowledge that their product is biased and contains major factual flaws. May its airings be cancelled everywhere! With reasons offered very publicly....

And perhaps in the process many Americans (and others worldwide) will be reminded yet again that they should be very careful about whom they believe and should always demand accuracy of creative vehicles that claim to be "true."

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It's tricky to know - you'd need a lawyer who's up to date

There has been one development in the last few years - the "Reynolds" defence (after a case involving the ex Irish Prime Minister) of 'qualified privilege'. It's a bit hazy, but there are areas the court considers, if it accepts the libel was not done 'with malice':

1.the seriousness of the allegation;

2.the nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern;

3.the source of the information;

4.the steps taken to verify the information;

5.the status of the information;

6.the urgency of the matter;

7.whether comment was sought from the claimant;

8.whether the article contained the gist of the claimant's side of the story;

9.the tone of the article; and

10.the circumstances of the publication, including the timing.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-right-of-free-expression/defamation---libel-and-slander/defences.shtml

The Telegraph, for instance, was told it couldn't claim this defence in the Galloway libel case, because it hadn't given him a chance to put their side of the story.

Now, in my completely unqualified and untrained opinion, I don't think the BBC would be able to use this, because this isn't an urgent matter, and the information in question is generally acknowledged to be false, and the BBC know that; and it's not "in the public interest" that the question of who did what come out in this one-sided way - they could have a discussion programme on it quite easily talking about the commission findings, and interviewing the people concerned. They might be able to say they've given Clinton et al a chance to comment if they get a short piece (interview, whatever) at the beginning or end of transmission to put their side. But I don't know if the BBC would want to do that anyway. I can't think of any case that has involved 'docudrama' - the BBC may think it's OK if it empahasises that some scenes are not based in fact. But if I were them, I'd be thinking of editing out the dubious scenes that have been talked about, and hang the continuity.