Reading Wikipedia, it looks like you're wrong!
Certainly, you're wrong that truth is not an absolute defence in England. Truth
IS an absolute defence.
The difference is the burden of proof. In America, the burden of proof is on the
plaintiff, to prove the statement *IS* libel. In England, the burden of proof is
on the defendant, to prove the statement ISN'T libel.
It seems to be the case, from wikipedia, that while Liberace probably was gay,
the fact that the defendant couldn't PROVE that was why he lost in the English
Courts. That's the way our law works.
It's in Germany that truth isn't an absolute defence. Even there though, the
case I'm thinking of, the plaintiff proved that the defendant was engaged in
malicious lies. Basically, the defendant, whether Stern or Bild or whatever, ran
a publicity campaign about how they were going to out a politician for some
dirty little secret. Only snag is, it wasn't a secret. It had pretty much been
forgotten but had been front page news way back when, and the Judge concluded
that the newspaper was engaged in malicious muckraking. So they got done.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
