Libel and you

[Alan Sircom]

**Moved to the general section**

Hello there,

As I am still a member of this forum, I thought I'd have to post my reasons for removing myself from a recent thread, and as it stands why I have to distance myself from this forum.

Journalists are often trained in libel law. Many of us have a heightened and perhaps enlarged sense of what can be considered actionable, and know the outcome of those actions. For the record, I was first trained in libel in the mid-1990s as a result of the Walker Wingsail Systems vs. Yachting World lawsuit (damages £1.5m + costs), and followed a series of substantial out-of-court settlements.

Put simply, libel is the publication of statements that exposes a person to injury or ridicule in the eyes of reasonable people.

A statement made that potentially damages the reputation of a person, or the office that person holds, or a company, are not libelous if the statement is true and thereby justified and fair comment. However the onus is on the person making the statement to demonstrate justification.

'True' in this context does not allow for 'a man in the pub told me' arguments. It doesn't even allow for 'I know it because everyone knows it' arguments... if you lack first-hand, documented statements that defend your position, the statement is defamatory. Although the defense that the statement was made in 'good faith' and 'reasonable belief' that the statement was true can be used, mistake of fact is very difficult to prove if you are stating supposition as fact.

Group defamation is usually harder to prosecute; if you say "all journalists are corrupt", those reasonable people cannot identify a specific group of journalists you are attempting to defame. Saying "the team at Shopping Bag Aficionado are idiots" is a group defamation, but again unlikely to be considered defamation because the opinion could be considered fair comment. However, saying "the editor of Shopping Bag Aficionado is corrupt" impugns both the position and the character of person holding that position and is potentially actionable.

Incidentally, suggesting a person is lax in the execution of their job without evidence to confirm that suggestion is one of the most common 'accidental' libels (the most common is 'getting it a bit wrong' - if someone has 15 convictions for robbery, but is on trial for armed robbery, calling them an 'armed robber' before conviction will land you in court... even if they are subsequently convicted for armed robbery). If you say 'the reviewer at Shopping Bag Aficionado got it wrong'... that's opinion and fair comment. Even saying 'the reviewer at Shopping Bag Aficionado got it wrong because he never opened the bag' demands evidence (the unopened bag).

Quoting a defamatory statement, even to quash that rumour, or to show both sides of an argument, usually ends up being just as defamatory.

As an editor of a consumer magazine, I have to distance myself from any such potential actionable statements, because they travel upstream, cause a lot of collateral damage and are also breathtakingly expensive. Having been through it once (even at one remove), I have no intention of repeating the experience, especially based on the actions of a third party.

As I also have no desire to see someone end up losing their house or business over making ill-conceived statements, I'm making this post.

I urge everyone to remember that publishing online is still publishing and if a statement is posted on a forum, it can be read by a reasonable person who is not a member of this forum simply by putting the right terms into a search engine.

If you want to know more (and I think you should), I recommend this site:

http://www.aubi06.dsl.pipex.com/law/libelcheck.shtml

Finally, if in the unlikely event that a magazine called Shopping Bag Aficionado exists, I apologise unreservedly for any unintentional slight on the unimpeachable reputation of the editorial staff of that fine (if probably imaginary) magazine. In my defense, I made a comprehensive search prior to producing examples and found that no such magazine currently exists.

[Joe]

In my defense, I made a comprehensive search prior to producing examples and found that no such magazine currently exists.

The word is 'defence' . You are clearly a US imposter and not the real Alan Sircom.

But seriously, sound points all. Especially that the burden of proof is on the person making the defamatory statement. I guess AoS chances at a libel trial would depend on whether the jury were subjectivists or objectivists.

'Members of the jury, I put it to you that all cables sound exactly the same' (outrage in the public gallery; a female juror faints).

[Steve Toy]

The AOS position

Defamatory comments against the hi-fi trade and this includes magazines are actually against our ethos as it is written.

It is our belief that a mistake may have been made with one particular review and one that WHF themselves seem willing to address. Beyond such mistake, which may not even be the fault of the magazine, for example if there was a fault with the review sample as a result of damage in transit, we have no reason to believe that any foul play has taken place.

Indeed there are too many unsubstantiated rumours running up and down the hi-fi gossip grapevine and some of these rumours have made their way in our direction when we so much as dare to wax lyrical about a product that we happen to use.

In future it will be reasonable to work within the spirit of our ethos as it has existed since the beginning and not make any defamatory comments about the motives of anyone in the hi-fi trade even with irrefutable proof. We can comment on given product or given methodology as we see or hear it but that's the full extent of anything remotely negative we may wish to say.

Certainly from the perspective of AOS and its admin, it's a case of people in glass houses...

[Marco]

Hi Alan,

Thanks for commenting and explaining the position with regard to libel. I understand and accept what you have said.

I have edited my original remark on the WHF thread, whilst still retaining the essence of the point I was making, as I do feel strongly about this. However, if you consider that there still exists anything written which is in fact libellous then please direct me to it and I will look into it accordingly.

My (personal) position on this situation though is quite clear:

I abhor corruption of any description in life, and in this instance, the notion (let's put it that way) of the results of equipment or cable reviews in hi-fi magazines being artificially influenced, either positively or negatively, as a result of commercial bias, favouritism through personal relationships with suppliers and manufacturers, 'funny handshakes', or however you wish to put it. I don’t think this is all that happened in the instance of the Mark Grant cable review in WHF, but I do feel it was a factor, along with a simple lack of professionalism and a significant degree of ineptitude on the part of the staff at WHF.

Whether you care to admit it or not (and I completely understand why you wouldn't), 'inappropriate behaviour' *does* occur in the industry and in business in general. To deny it exists, in my opinion, is to live in cloud-cuckoo land - and more importantly, brushing it under the carpet to protect the interests of certain companies or individuals is not what I'm about or (in this instance) AOS.

Therefore as co-owner of this forum I'm in a position of influence to expose situations in the industry which I feel are, shall we say, 'not whiter than white', and I will continue to do so whenever I feel that it is appropriate, although what I will do in future is stop short of actually accusing someone of being 'bent'. I would apologise for that.

Thing is, last night you were being rather stubborn by firmly putting your 'I'm and editor of a hi-fi magazine' hat on, and in some ways, rather irrationally (although understandably) defending the interests of your fellow reviewers/editors elsewhere to the detriment of getting to the heart of the problem - namely that the review of the Mark Grant G1000HDs was at best 'badly judged', and it was this that I found frustrating and which prompted me to make my remark.

Anyway, if you've chosen to distance yourself from AOS for the reasons you've outlined then I respect that and am of course sad to see you go. I do enjoy reading much of what you write both on forums and in your magazine, as you're a knowledgeable and intelligent writer and also what seems like a nice chap.

However, at the same time I cannot allow my respect and admiration for you as a person and hi-fi magazine editor to get in the way of doing what I think is right by exposing the 'corruption' that exists in certain areas of the industry and my desire to defend the interests of the 'underdog', or in this case small business. I feel very strongly about this and so unfortunately I must prioritise sticking up for what I believe is right over appeasing your personal sensibilities or those of any other magazine editor.

I'm afraid that's the cold hard facts of the situation. However, should you decide it inappropriate to continue contributing here then I respect your decision and wish you well for the future. I hope you can succeed in turning around a magazine (Hi-fi+) that in my opinion is a pale imitation of its former self, so best of luck with that and I hope there are no hard feelings!

Regards,
Marco.

[Themis]

+1 Steve.

[Steve Toy]

I abhor corruption of any description in life, and in this instance, the notion (let's put it that way) of the results of reviews of equipment or cables in any hi-fi magazine being artificially influenced, either positively or negatively, as a result of commercial bias, favouritism through personal relationships with suppliers and manufacturers, 'funny handshakes', or however you wish to put it. I don’t think that’s all that happened in the instance of the Mark Grant cable review in WHF, but I do feel it was a factor, along with a simple lack of professionalism and a significant degree of ineptitude on the part of the staff at WHF.

I think the correct way to approach this is to question the methodology and indeed challenge what is written but stop short of making any accusations of foul play. If you do the first two with a degree of thoroughness people are left to make their own minds up about the latter.

[Filterlab]

I believe that in this country we have free speech and free opinion. If we share these opinions in a public domain we are not liable for libel. Isn't that the cornerstone of democracy?

A forum is opinions and nothing else.

[Steve Toy]

I guess as long as it is expressed as an opinion and not a defamatory accusation you are ok.

[Joe]

'I believe that in this country we have free speech and free opinion. If we share these opinions in a public domain we are not liable for libel. Isn't that the cornerstone of democracy?'

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the law relating to libel if you believe that.

Making a statement that reflects adversely on another person's honesty and/or competence to do their job is libellous unless you can prove that they have been dishonest and/or incompetent. The UK libel laws are amongst the toughest in the world.

[Joe]

I guess as long as it is expressed as an opinion and not a defamatory accusation you are ok.

You don't want to be 'guessing' where the law is concerned.

It's OK to say a review is wrong. It's OK to say that you fundamentally disagree with the review. It's not OK to say, or even imply, or repeat someone else's words to the effect that the reviewer or magazine is corrupt, or that the reviewer is incompetent, unless you have proof.