[Foundation-l] Relocation announcement

[Andrew Gray]

On 22/09/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:

> > As discussed interminably on some other list this very week, British
> > defamation law is voracious and enthusiastic. Having WMF operating in
> > a British jurisdiction, or keeping assets there, is pretty much an
> > invitation for someone to sue us in a UK court - a situation where we
> > might win but we would certainly suffer.
>
> I thought the main reason British defamation law was "voracious and
> enthusiastic" was because it has a very loose definition of what it's
> jurisdiction is, so I don't see how the main WMF office being in
> Britain would make it any more susceptible to British defamation law.

There's two major aspects here, and that's one of them.

Firstly, as you say, it has a very broad interpretation of its
jurisdiction. If you have standing in the UK - you have a reputation
to be damaged - and someone publishes something in the UK, you can sue
them. "Publishing", for the internet, is essentially defined as
happening in the place you access the material from. So essentially,
anything on the internet - even if written by a Canadian and hosted in
Brazil, defaming a Dutchman - can give rise to a lawsuit.

Secondly, it's very favourable to the plaintiff. You don't have to
prove any actual damage; only that it would "tend to" make people
think the worse of you. You don't have to prove it's untrue; indeed,
you can still win if it *is* true, in some circumstances. All the
burden of proof is on the defendant. What this means is that, if you
want to bring a defamation lawsuit, the UK is about your best option
in terms of your likelihood of success.

And thanks to the first part, it's surprisingly easy to justify
bringing a case in the UK...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk