World News

33507 readers

223 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Chinese t-shirt producer wins lawsuit in the UK against fabricators of the Xinjiang forced labor lie. (becivil.co.uk)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Did the court conclude the accusations were false, or did they only say it was detamatory? I read the full article and the legalese hurts my head. So many words which mean nothing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I've found the entire text of the judgement here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/3276.html

It's also full of legalese, but as far as I understand the court did not rule on the verity of the statements, only on whether they are defamatory:

Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they "substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so"

...

Conclusion:

...

The meanings of both publications are of fact and both are defamatory at common law with a Chase level 2 meaning.

This just means that a lawsuit can move on to factual arguments (i.e. arguments about the truth of those statements). Whoever is more convincing to the judge will win. So IIUC at least, the headline of this post is incorrect.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Same thing, defamation means that the one making the claim is unable to back them up with any evidence

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

I don't think it does necessarily,

Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they “substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so”

This definition doesn't consider the truth of the statement or even whether it is provable, merely whether it affects opinion.

AFAIU this ruling just means that the lawsuit can carry forward to substantive arguments.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

No, "truth" is a valid defense as established by the Defamation Act of 2013, section 2

Truth
It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It is a valid defense, but it is not a part of the definition of defamation. I think it's similar to how "self-defense" is a valid defense for homicide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

"Truth" being a valid defense absolutely means that defamation does not encompass true statements, just as self defense acts are not homicides

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

self defense acts are not homicides

They absolutely are. There's even a term for it - justifiable homicide.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Under this logix, saying something true would also be defamation, as long as it hurts the opinion of somebody else. This doesn't check out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I was also surprised about this, but I took this quote directly from the judgement in question. As I think about it, it starts to make more sense - literally, defamation is dis (break into pieces/remove/...) + famo (fame/reputation). The word itself only conveys that someone's reputation was injured, not that it was injured unjustly. IIUC the words for "unjust defamation" are specifically libel and slander, under common law. I think it's similar to how there's "homicide" (the act of one person killing another) which can be legal (e.g. self-defense) or criminal (e.g. murder). At least that's my understanding of it.