death knell to freedom of speech in uk

Discussion in 'Madeleine McCann' started by Clutchbag, Feb 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Clutchbag

    Clutchbag New Member

    Messages:
    1,358
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. brit1981

    brit1981 New Member

    Messages:
    1,476
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This was not a libel case, but a contempt of court case so it has nothing to do with free speech.

    In no country in the world is there absolute freedom of speech.
    Both in the US and the Uk the mccanns could sue several people for libel anyway. The main difference is that in England and Wales the burden of proof is on the defendent, whereas in the US it is on the claiment. Since the McCanns can prove that the claims being made are untrue they have a water tight case for libel against anyone making them both in the Uk and the US (for instance they can prove they have not used the fund to pay libel costs, they cna prove that they did not use calpol to sedate the children, they can prove her father has never claime dthis, they can prove that it is the law that the fund coudl not be a charity, they can prove that the fund is as transparent as any charity, they can prove the smiths did not identify gerry, they can prove that madeleine's dna was not identified in the car, they can prove the dogs are not proof of a body, they can prove they were not 120 metres away, they can prove that the PAG found there was no evidence they committed any crime including neglect and that the PAG believed it would have been impossible for them to have been involved in the disappearence etc).
    Using free speech as an excuse to spread lies, and threaten people is an abuse of free speech. People talk about the UK have strict libel laws, but the Bennett case is not an example of this. This case was black and white, it did not involved libel tourism, nor did it involve stretching the menaing of defamatory, nor did they involve actual opinions. It involved a person making direct claims, that are untrue and can be proven to be so.
     
  4. prospektor

    prospektor Member

    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Really? Well, at least the judge is sure that there was intent to allege a suspicion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice