A Quote by Simon Singh

When I attended a forum on libel reform at the British Academy in 2011, 20 figures ranging from law professors to leading libel law firm, Carter Ruck, from MPs to free speech groups, discussed the issue of corporations. There was unanimous agreement that there needed to be restrictions on the right of corporations to sue in libel.
Many of the worst cases that triggered the campaign for libel reform involved corporations suing critics, so these particular sections of the bill are vital to reduce future abuses of libel law.
Libel law was developed to protect the reputations of individuals, not corporations.
In most Western democracies, you do have the freedom of speech. But freedom of speech is not an entitlement to reach. You are free to say what you want, within the confines of hate speech, libel law and so on. But you are not entitled to have your voice artificially amplified by technology.
All the libel lawyers will tell you there's no libel any more, that everyone's given up.
If someone feels they're being maliciously treated, then they should sue for libel. And if someone is malicious, if they are reckless, they will have no defence in law at all.
In Britain, libel damages are small and people build them into the cost of doing business. In America, libel is very rare and much harder to prove, but the damages are enormous.
We're going to open up the libel laws. So when they write falsely, we can sue the media and we can get this story corrected and get damages. I would absolutely work to open up the libel laws. If you write something that's wrong, and at least, knowingly wrong but wrong, a person like me and other people can bring a lawsuits to have it corrected and to get damage.
Nobody wants to get rid of the libel laws, but we want them to be fairer. If we drove down the costs you might end up with more people suing. The only people who can afford it now are the rich and the giant corporations.
The same law applies to me. Nobody has sued me for libel because I do not defame my enemies.
An injurious lie is an uncommendable thing; and so, also, and in the same degree, is an injurious truth a fact that is recognized by the law of libel .
Regulation has never really worked unless it's hate speech libel etc.
The First Amendment was specifically designed for citizens to insult politicians. Libel laws were written to protect law students speaking out on political issues from getting called whores by Oxycontin addicts.
If when I am libelled I take no notice, the world believes the libel. If I sue, I have to pay about one hundred pounds' costs for the privilege, and gain the smallest coin the country knows for recompense.
Wart hogs should sue for libel. It is a terrible name and they are fine fellows and devoted family men and it is rare to see one by himself; the little woman and the kiddies are usually close at hand.
But it is recognized that punishment for the abuse of the liberty accorded to the press is essential to the protection of the public, and that the common law rules that subject the libeler to responsibility for the public offense, as well as for the private injury, are not abolished by the protection extended in our constitutions. The law of criminal libel rests upon that secure foundation. There is also the conceded authority of courts to punish for contempt when publications directly tend to prevent the proper discharge of judicial functions.
We want to protect freedom of speech, but it is not unlimited freedom of speech. There has always been rules around defamation, slander and libel, and in Victoria, we have effective rules on racial and religious vilification.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!