- Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper lost a bid to overturn a ruling it libeled U.K. politician George Galloway by reporting he was in the pay of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Galloway, 51, was awarded 150,000 pounds ($263,000) in damages in 2004 over a series of articles alleging he secretly pocketed hundreds of thousands of pounds from Hussein’s regime through the United Nations’ oil-for-food program.
The Court of Appeal in London today backed that judgment, saying the newspaper hadn’t merely reported the allegations but “adopted and embellished them.”…
Under U.K. law, the Daily Telegraph may also be liable for the politician’s legal costs, which are estimated at around 1.5 million pounds, according to lawyers involved with the proceedings.
Let me be the first to say that – whatever the merits of Galloway’s claims – this judgment, British libel law generally, and people who sue for libel suck. The ITN v. LM suit, in which a news organization took a small magazine to court for exposing its lies and won, proved once and for all that truth is no defense in the UK. But whether what someone thinks of another is true or not, reputations are not personal property – and if Galloway owned his, he would have an indisputable case against himself for destroying it.
I hope – vainly, I’m sure – that this ridiculous, state-sanctioned gagging of a reliably pro-war media outlet will cool the libel fever of neocons on this side of the Atlantic. Remember this from Michael Ledeen?
- On July 10, Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, delivered a tirade against his version of neoconservatism. He called it “Neo-Conned!” and he posted it on his website and had it distributed as best he could. A considerable part of it is devoted to his version of my writings, and is so inaccurate, so distorted, and so nasty, as to make me wish once again that this country had a decent libel law so that I could at least get some money from him and give him a healthy dose of the public humiliation he deserves. Unfortunately, members of Congress are protected from such suits.
Ledeen concluded his piece in classic middle school 5-paragraph essay fashion:
- If we had a libel law worthy of the name, he’d either quickly correct his statements and apologize to those he’s libeled, or find himself looking for the money to pay the damages he has certainly incurred.
Ledeen is always welcome to emigrate. How does Canada sound? The libel laws up there are almost certainly more to his liking, and the resident neocons take full advantage of them. In a favorable profile of Canadian publisher Conrad Black in 2001, Slate writer David Plotz noted in passing, “He files libel suits almost for sport.” Black settled one libel suit out of court last week and has another pending.
Of course, one needn’t leave the good ol’ USA to enjoy all the repressive benefits of libel laws the world over. In 2003, Iraq war architect Richard Perle threatened to sue New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh in George Galloway’s backyard. He eventually wimped out, but only after letting the threat linger until the statute of limitations had expired.
Having been on the receiving end of such bluster myself, I’m quite happy to live in a country whose libel laws are unworthy of Michael Ledeen’s respect. Ledeen and his prissy, authoritarian comrades should either hail Galloway’s victory or shut up about Britain’s “superior” legal system.