• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

It's not libel, allegedly

Peripart

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
6,732
This is something that "Have I Got News For You" first started, as far as I can tell. Angus Deayton used to say something borderline-libellous about some public figure and then, after a slight pause, say "allegedly". The implication was, of course, that if you were only repeating an allegation, and not making one of your own, then you were not opening yourself up to charges of libel. I'm not saying it wasn't funny - it was very amusing, at least the first few dozen times. Funnier still was that when it came to Jeffrey Archer, they never bothered to say "allegedly" at all, at least not after he'd been to prson, but that's another story.

This seems to be a fairly widespread belief, although newspapers now have the trick of putting unproven charges in inverted commas, as in:
Prince Andrew "buggered his corgi", says palace insider
So is this correct or not? If, to take the (alleged) example above, HRH the Duke of York turned out not to have sodomised a corgi, maybe not any dog at all, would the use of the "A"-word or inverted commas protect the newspaper or TV show from prosecution? Or is it just an UL that you can cover your tracks this way?
 
Apparently it's true, cos what you're stating is that there is an allegation, not that it is a statement of fact. If the Sunday Filth alleges that Prince Andrew buggered his corgi, you can freely state that it has been alleged that Prince Andrew buggered his corgi. Merely stating that he buggered his corgi is open to libel action, however, as I'm sure as a statement it's totally untrue.
 
It depends, AFAIK, if they qualify the word 'says' as being part of a statement of fact. So in the sentence given as an example, 'say's would cause more problems than the word 'alleges'.
 
This is something I've been wondering about - is it legal to print something like the above Andrew-related allegation and say it is simply the word of an unidentified "insider"? Because the "insider" is never identified, therefore unprosecutable...?
 
AFAIK, if there was any sort of libel/slander case, the sources for such information would have to be divulged. I think a paper can still be prosecuted for publishing the slanderous or libelous statements of another person, especially so if it presents them as a fact.
 
carcassandra said:
This is something I've been wondering about - is it legal to print something like the above Andrew-related allegation and say it is simply the word of an unidentified "insider"? Because the "insider" is never identified, therefore unprosecutable...?

Don't think so, Because they could still sue you, Fortean Times Board, a newspaper or publisher , whoever they feel is spreading the untruth - not necessarily the original source.

-
 
carcassandra said:
This is something I've been wondering about - is it legal to print something like the above Andrew-related allegation and say it is simply the word of an unidentified "insider"? Because the "insider" is never identified, therefore unprosecutable...?

In the American media reporters have to reveal the names of their "unidentified sources" to their own editorial guru/supervisor/boss BEFORE the story is printed/broadcast.

Thus the reporter can't simply make up an "anonymous source" to enact revenge on some public figure that he or she simply doesn't like.
 
Under American libel and slander laws, the plaintiff also has to demonstrate that the false statement was made with malign intent and wasn't merely an innocent mis-reportage of erroneous information.

And that intent is notoriously difficult to prove.
 
Libel and slander are not illegal. You can't be arrested for them. You can say what you like, about whom you like.

However, if the person you're discussing takes offence because it's not true and is damaging to their reputation -ie defamatory - then they can take civil action against you.

Merely repeating a slander/libel is also potentially actionable: tacking on 'allegedly' wouldn't help against a determinedly litigious subject. As Robert Maxwell showed, time after time. ;)
 
escargot1 said:
Merely repeating a slander/libel is also potentially actionable: tacking on 'allegedly' wouldn't help against a determinedly litigious subject. As Robert Maxwell showed, time after time. ;)


But Robert Maxwell did tend to go overboard...
 
Yup. I remember how shocked people were who knew him - he can't have killed himself! He was happy! His mood had been bouyant!
 
escargot1 said:
Merely repeating a slander/libel is also potentially actionable....

That would probably depend on how and why the material was repeated. Let's say I hear a vicious rumor concerning Genuflexio Letterbox, a personal hero. I decide to research the rumor, to determine its authenticity or (preferrably) the lack of it. The mannerr in which I'm going to start that research is by asking other people if THEY'VE heard the rumor. And the only way to do that is by REPEATING it.

On the other hand, EVERYTHING is actionable. But not all actions are going to carry.
 
I'm not sure what the legal situation is elsewhere, but as far I'm aware, libel (publishing untrue allegations) and slander (verbal allegations) are, as escargot pointed out, not criminal offences in the UK.

The crux in both cases is that the gossipper must be aware that the allegation is untrue and that it will be hurtful to the gossippee, hence such cases are usually only bought by the very rich against other very rich people or organisations. Only the innocent rich would try to sue if they knew the allegations hadn't an element of truth in them. Allegedly.

The ironic use of "allegedly" for comic effect could, perhaps, be deemed as malacious but I can't afford the same lawyers as certain celebrities so I'll say no more. Possibly.

Jane.
 
mejane1 said:
The crux in both cases is that the gossipper must be aware that the allegation is untrue and that it will be hurtful to the gossippee....

Similarly in the States the plaintiff has to prove malign intent, which as I wrote above is notoriously difficult to establish.
 
Timble2 said:
escargot1 said:
Merely repeating a slander/libel is also potentially actionable: tacking on 'allegedly' wouldn't help against a determinedly litigious subject. As Robert Maxwell showed, time after time. ;)


But Robert Maxwell did tend to go overboard...

Reminds of a joke at the time:

Why is Bob Maxwell like an Essex Girls?
They both get picked up around the Canaries.
 
Back
Top