RS

What are your thoughts on the idea of Mass Libel Action? I’ve always thought it somewhat strange that I can sue someone who says, for example, Reactionary Snob is a paedophile but if I was an asylum seeker I couldn’t sue the Daily Mail if they ran a story saying ‘All Asylum seekeres roast their children on open fires for dinner’. I’d say that in the latter case ALL asylum seekers are being tarred with the same brush.

In the first instance, I’d agree – I’m not sure individual libel law is all that necessary. However, as mass action can’t be taken it means that newspapers can cause tangible harms to large groups of people. Groups of people who don’t really have legal recourse (i.e. an individual asylum seeker can’t sue the Daily Mail in the above instance) and who don’t have access to the media. The other side to this, of course, would be that papers would be less likely to run anti-asylum seeker or, indeed, anti-traveler stories if they weren’t true.

The downside, of course, is that we’d see things a little like mass tort law in the USA – where anyone who has sought asylum can add their name ot list and they could, in theory, bring down a newspaper. Then again, if said newspaper had told a malicious lie that had hurt a number of people so much that a judge/jury awards mass damages… fuck them?

TAGS: Accused Rapist, Alisher Usmanov, Ambassador, Ambassadorial, Arsenal, Chelsea, Embassy, Foreign Office, Gafur Rakimov, Gazprom, Gazprom Investholdings, Gorbachev, Gulnara, Gulnara Karimova, Ivan Safronov, Jastrzebski, Karimov, Kommersant, Mapobank, Moscow, Mr Usmanov, Murder, Pardon, Craig Murray, Censorship

Thank you.

Perhaps not, but it’s also not reasonable to expect them to take down several other entirely uninvolved websites as well, simply because they’re too fucking inept to do their job properly…

As for me, personally, I feel and maintain that anyone who tries to defend against a libel suite is by the very nature guilty. Those who just ignore the comments are innocent. Plus they are ‘GROWN UP’. I would also say that in the case of the tycoon you speak of, by my definition he IS very much guilty, So sue me – Thats my opinion and I will NEVER change it. Why should he be worried about getting ‘his innocence into the media’ if he were ACTUALLY innocent.
It’s rather CHILDISH Usmanov to actually think that we ‘Give a SHIT’. Just goes to show that being rich does not hide the fact that one can still be ‘STUPID’.

Personally I will check what it is Usmanov owns and I will make a concerted effort to AVOID it.

That is a good idea, does anyone know what he does and how can I avoid increasing his finances. Let me know.