ChristopherWhite.info

Blimey. You go away for two weeks and the internet gets shat on (one more time).

To recap for anyone (else) who has been living under a rock: Uzbek billionaire and owner of a fat slice of the Arsenal pie Alisher Usmanov announces that he wants to increase his stake to 25%. Craig Murray, the UK’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan — who knows a thing or two about Usmanov — suggests on his blog that he’s a horrific, violent criminal. Usmanov takes exception to this, and has his lawyers Shillings send various threatening letters to Murray’s web host, Fasthosts, who duly pull down Murray’s site, Tim Ireland’s Bloggerheads site, which had repeated Murray’s allegations, and caused collateral damage to others sub-letting server space, notably Boris Johnson.

The blogosphere, unprecedentedly united, rightly agreed that this wasn’t on.

Probably nobody is entirely shocked at the actions of Usmanov or of Schillings. It is, after all, a fairly natural thing for both the oligarch and a firm of libel lawyers to do. Fasthosts on the other hand have capitulated far too easily — and yet who can blame them when the mainstream media act in exactly the same way?

The current Private Eye — a periodical all too familiar with libel writs — has two stories on Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. Two months ago Cambridge University Press pulped the book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, which repeats claims by the US treasury that his charity funded terrorism. Mahfouz insists this is a defamatory statement on the grounds that he wasn’t involved in running the charity.

The Eye reports that over the summer the Spectator was to run a piece about Mahfouz by Brendan O’Neill, which

‘…listed all the pulped titles and concluded that this Saudi billionaire is “almost single-handedly determining what we Brits may read and hear about contemporary terrorism”. One thing Brits may not read, alas, is O’Neill’s piece: it too was spiked at the last moment!’

And that two weeks ago Nick Cohen wrote his Observer column about Mahfouz, only to have it spiked after “a fit of legal collywobbles”.

It’s an editor’s job to report on people like Mahfouz — or like Usmanov. If they’re not defending their right to publish journalism in the public interest, it’s too much to expect Fasthosts to do so. (Though given the nature of the allegations it’s not a massive conceptual leap to imagine that the Observer and Spectator were more concerned about getting Jihaded in the face than being sued.)

The judges aren’t helping either. The other story in the Eye tells how Mahfouz has brought a defamation claim against Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld over her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How To Stop It. Now, in British libel law, to bring an action in the UK there has to be a publication in the UK (this unfortunately includes websites hosted on US servers but viewable here). Funding Evil was published by an American house, with no British edition or promotion in this country, yet Mr Justice Eady ruled that the matter can be dealt with in London’s courts because 23 people imported the book via Amazon, and, because Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge UK jurisdiction, then ruled in favour of Mahfouz by default. (It’s a shame that Ehrenfeld is trying to get this dealt with in an American court: on appeal in the UK it seems likely either that she’d get the case thrown out or probably win.)

The other questionable case law is one which is directly relevant to this business with Usmanov. Godfrey v Demon, in which it was established that web hosts are liable for defamatory material on their servers, is detailed by the Ministry of Truth. This is now used as a basis for most libel claims on the internet, even though it’s a very specific type of case and entirely different circumstances to Murray and Usmanov.

The defamatory material was an anonymous comment on a discussion board. The claimant had little choice but to go to Demon, as he couldn’t possibly have approached the individual responsible for the post directly. In this instance — and, arguably, where a blogger is using a service such as Wordpress, Typepad or Blogger — the ISP can reasonably be described as the “publisher”. But this manifestly isn’t the case with Murray, or with most bloggers (myself included), running a site that they are almost exclusively responsible for and in their own name — if not directly then easily available by sticking the domain name in WhoIs. In cases such as this, web hosts play a role more like that fulfilled by printers in traditional media, and while printers can be sued (along with the writer, editor, publisher, distributor and distributor’s cat) they almost never are. Ideally in such instances — where a writer is running his own site under his own name — the web hosts would be immune.

Among the other issues is that Schillings were simply using the threat of legal action to shut down debate without ever intending to use it. Many other bloggers pointed out that exactly the same allegations were made in Murray’s book, Murder in Samarkand, and its publishers have gone curiously unchallenged. And then:

Laura Tyler, of Schillings, said they did not intend to sue Murray directly because they did not want to give him a platform to express his views.

This is tantamount to admitting that they don’t really intend to sue anyone about Murray’s allegations at all, given that any attempt to prove them true would necessarily involve Murray testifying. By using threats in the way that they have, they’re forcing non-publication where a court wouldn’t — rulings against “prior restraint” mean that judges are extremely unlikely to grant an injunction preventing publication of defamatory material. (Interestingly, had it ever gone to court Murray might not have been ordered to take down his posts entirely either. After Loutchansky v Times Newspapers in 2001, newspapers were advised to attach a notice to potentially defamatory archive material on the internet, warning against treating it as the truth.) It might be an idea to prevent law firms contacting publishers, writers etc directly, making them go through a court instead, so that if they threaten to sue they have to go through with it — preventing the likes of Usmanov and Schillings using their power and money to scare people into not publishing.

The final major difference between blogs and the traditional media — largely even online — is that it’s the simplest thing in the world to make a correction to a defamatory blog post: via the comments. Since any false statements are so easily remedied, there may be a case for having material published on blogs dealt with as slander rather than libel. Libel suits automatically assume damage to the reputation of the claimant, whereas slander isn’t actionable per se and damage to reputation must be proven. (Hence we have a thoroughly stupid discord between published and spoken defamatory statements even in private communications. If I say to you in person that, for example, George Bush had sex with a goat, he would have to prove damage to his reputation. If I write it to you in a letter — or an email — damage is assumed.) Given the ease with which corrections can be made, it seems entirely reasonable that someone who feels he has been defamed should only be able to bring an action if he can show that he’s suffered damage to his reputation.

Probably unlike many of the other bloggers who have written about this, and certainly unlike Dr Ehrenfeld, I reckon English libel law — in print – strikes a good balance between press freedom and protection of reputation. Via the Reynolds Public Interest Defence, provided that the press practice practice “responsible journalism” and the story is the public interest, a newspaper will win a libel case even if the allegations prove to be untrue. Last year’s Jameel v Wall Street Journal (another Saudi accused of funding terrorism) case in the House of Lords liberalised this even further, so newspapers aren’t hamstrung by libel laws and can make honest mistakes without fear of being sued.

But on the net they’re a complete mess, a mass of made-up-on-the-spot rulings and bad case law, and need reforming badly. (Boris? Private Members’ Bill?) That’s likely to be at best a long time coming, and would be relying on others rather than helping ourselves. Perhaps the best thing that bloggers could do is institute some sort of Libel Insurance.

2 Comments »

Matthew’s best internet prank yet?

No Comments »

*

No Comments »

In this New Statesman piece on the origins of all the guns that are supposedly flooding the country, Martin Bright reports that guns are often designed to be easily taken apart and arrive in the UK separately as various components. (Probably tried on a much larger scale for Iraq’s “Babylon Gun”.)
According to the academics, these are quite hard to identify. Bright quotes Wolvehampton University gun-crime expert Peter Waddington as saying:

“You need to be a very good Customs officer to say ‘that’s a trigger mechanism’.”

In which case if guns coming into Britain is as big a problem as we’re being told, why aren’t customs officers being trained to spot the components?

1 Comment »

Football Focus yesterday unwittingly provided further evidence that England boss Steve McClaren at best talks all kinds of nonsense and at worst just hasn’t got a clue what he’s doing.

In their interview, Ray Stubbs inevitably got round to the question of David Beckham, asking: “Will the MLS keep him sharp enough to play in Euro 2008 qualifiers?”

McClaren’s answer: “We’re hoping so. He’s hoping so. As long as he’s fit, as long as he’s got the motivation, eveybody knows what David Beckham can do. And the proof will be when he comes, when he trains, when he plays. I think we’ll see then that we’re still getting the same kind of performances that we got against Brazil.”¹

But the MLS is such a drastically lower standard of football that he clearly isn’t going to be stretched or have to push himself week-in, week-out, and can’t possibly be as sharp as if he were playing in the Premier League or in Spain. It’s exactly the same logic that prevents the England coaching staff from looking twice at players from the Championship. McClaren frankly seems to be making it up as he goes along.

1 A succesful test of my underused shorthand, I feel.

No Comments »

One Martin Kelly, commenting on Tim’s post linking to my previous one:

“Christopher, the prick to whom you have linked here, looks as if he’s about 12.”

(The other day I found a photo of me when I actually was 12, and I looked like a six-year-old girl.)

7 Comments »

I’ve been trying my utmost not to swear on this blog — at least not regularly. But it’s taking every iota of restraint not to resort to likening Neil Clark to a moist part of the female anatomy.

This vicious piece he’s written for Comment Is Free can be summed up as: “We should let Iraqis who have worked with the British Army be killed when we leave, because they deserve it.”

Scumbag.

CIF perhaps unsurprisingly turned off comments on that post after three hours rather than the usual three days, but it was still enough time for some great responses, like this from Daniel Davies:

Every bone in my body wants to bluntly invite Neil to consider the implications of his implied policy - that the most violent and nationalistic element of society should be given free reign to dish out rough justice to people they regard as traitors - for the long term survival of his own political party. But I think that would probably be crossing a line in terms of the talk policy so I’ll just note that there is an inconsistency here.

Let’s be clear here, expanding on Conor’s point above. There is a clear duty of any occupying power to ensure security for the population under occupation. It’s in the Geneva Convention. To intentionally abandon people who you expect to be killed by deaths squads is by that token a war crime. That’s why the official policy of the UK government is not to commit this war crime but to instead offer silly and insufficiently generous asylum slots. That’s bad enough.

Neil Clark, on the other hand, is actually saying that the war crime is the correct thing to do. That’s crazy. How can it possibly be part of any sensible anti-war position to say that an occupying force has no obligation to stop people being murdered? And why would anyone, even if they did regard the Iraqi insurgency as “true heroes”, think that this true heroism was best expressed by murdering whole families? Translators, cooks and mechanics simply aren’t “quislings” and no sane resistance movement has ever acted as if they were.

And this from the ever-wise Conor Foley:

Since Clark rests part of his incitement to murder on international law (and clearly the terms in which he has described these civilian staff as ‘legitimate targets’ does constitute such an incitment), it is worth explaining one point here.

There is an overwelming consensus that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. However, the notion that people ‘collaborating with the occupation’ are war criminals is rubbish. On the contrary, the statute of the International Criminal Court, which is largely based on the Geneva Conventions, specifically states that what Clark is advocating is a war crime. You can find the link here:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html

It is worth reading Article 8 on war crimes. Amongst the crimes that it lists are:

‘Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities’.

The second half of that sentence was specifically written to protect those whom Clark calls ‘collaborators’. He goes on to argue against a basic principle of human rights law (enshrined in the UN Convention against Torture, the Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights) that people fleeing persecution should be denied sanctuary in Britain, so we can assume that his commitment to international law is fairly selective.

What is more interesting is whether or not this article, through its clear incitment to people to commit war crimes (his repeated refusal to distinguish between military combatants and civilians), would actually make Clark himself liable to criminal prosecution. The Rwanda radio case springs to mind and war crimes have universal jurisdiction. I think that the police and attorney general might want to have a word here.

I hope that you have a sleepless night Clark. This article brought back some very painful memories for me.

( And I really hope — though doubt — that the “SimonJ” who had a comment deleted by the moderators is the Guardian’s own Mr Jenkins.)

Yet it’s heartening, particularly given my previous post, that the best part of 200 commenters all agree that Clark is a complete twat. Damn. Knew I wouldn’t be able to keep that up.

Dan Hardie has the lastest update on MPs’ responses here, and there is a rather clever video by Tim Ireland here.

UPDATE 12/8/07

To clarify, I do not myself think Neil Clark should go to prison. I do however think he’s a world-class turd.

2 Comments »

Dan Hardie picked up and brought to many people’s attention the plight of Iraqi interpreters working with the British Army who we apparently leaving to be killed once Her Maj’s forces withdraw, and started the “We Can’t Turn Them Away” campaign. (See also: the report in the Times here; Justin of Chicken Yoghurt’s collation of MPs’ responses to pissed-off constituents here. I’ll post my MP’s reply on here once the Rt Hon Helen Goodman gets back to me.)

But we live, lamentably, in a country largely characterised by its conservatism and pride in ignorance of politics. Luckily, however, this is sometimes piss funny.

The stupidest possible remark on the Iraqi interpreters’ situation has been plucked from the BBC’s “Have You Say” by the absolutely delightful blog spEak You’re bRanes (disciples of Chris Morris, one suspects):

Interpreters ?
No they should not be given asylum! If you want to live here you should have the decency to learn our language!
We should have no need for interpreters, or at least not a lot of interpreters.

Joe Turner, London, United Kingdom

Eh?

1 Comment »

Blazed across the front of this week’s New Statesman: “Jacqui Smith: Don’t call me a liberal.”

Ok. Don’t call me Sebastian.

(The full interview makes for depressing reading.)

No Comments »

Censorship upsets me.

This might have upset me more than most though. Matthew received a request from person unknown to take down this magnificent post that simultaneously derides rubbish attempts at terror and the Concert For Diana. Why? Because it’s “insensitive”.

Now, even if it were on a proper, “fourth estate”, public-service media outlet — rather than a personal, humourous blog — it still wouldn’t be justified to demand taking it down. But being where it is, the simple rule of “if you don’t like it, don’t read/watch/listen to it” applies even more.

Nor can I understand at the selfishness and arrogance of the kind of attitude that decides that because he personally considers something insensitive/offensive/whatever that others should be denied its enjoyment.

That said, given the timing of the attacks, perhaps people were more annoyed about Salman Rushdie’s knighthood than was first thought.

3 Comments »