PM George Galloway won his case against Jcom, a non-profit Jewish radio station in London for broadcasting a defamatory radio segment accusing him of anti-Semitism. The radio program is broadcast over the Internet to a tiny audience — only 36 people heard the juvenile segment by Richard Malach.
During the Novermber broadcast Malach called himself “Georgie Galloway”, the station’s “Middle East correspondent” and used the catchphrase, “kill the Jews, kill the Jews”. Jcom filed Malach immediately, issued an apology on its website and offered Mr Galloway the opportunity to appear on the station. Galoway sued instead.
Mr Justice Eady ruled that the words used were in “appalling taste” and “Mr Galloway is the founding member of the Respect Party and is prominent in denouncing racism and discrimination, and has no anti-Semitic or racist views.”
The High Court told the station to pay the MP damages of £15,000. The radio station was forced to shutdown.
There is an exception for parody in the United States, but this would be potentially actionable in the United States as well. However, most states have correction and retraction laws that protect news organizations from certain damages. Moreover, we do not have the English Rule — requiring the payment of the other parties attorney’s fees — a very draconian and unwise rule in my view. Finally, in the United States, special damages do not have to be proven in cases of libel and — while broadcast and Internet shows are not written in the classic sense – courts have applied libel rather than slander rules. Yet, with only 36 listeners in a case of parody, the actual damages would appear quite small.
For the full story, click here.
why is the professor apologizing for the law which restricts zionists’ slander of innocent people?
faceless; thank you pointing out some of the inaccuracies in the story, it’s important to not just swallow everything one reads. Also, I wonder what is meant by “Jewish” radio station. The UK has the second highest Jewish population in Europe, although it’s less than half of the number in France. So for the largest city in the second largest Jewish population in Europe to now have zero “Jewish” radio stations is probably inaccurate as well.
“Moreover, we do not have the English Rule — requiring the payment of the other parties attorney’s fees — a very draconian and unwise rule in my view.”
***********
I like the English Rule for some cases. It prevents frivolous defenses in meritorious cases and it is already incorporated with modification in some states with the “good faith” pleading rule and monetary penalties for unreasonable failure to admit undisputed facts. It also is a significant incentive to settlement since it is the most well-heeled litigant who stands the most to lose if it guesses wrong with the jury. This inures to the benefit of the individual litigant against the large corporate defendant. In most cases, consumers would not ever be able to pay those costs but the losing corporate defendant would likely always be able to pay. Perhaps that is why the defense bar, for all its lamentations about frivolous lawsuits*, always resists this legislation.
___________
* They usually define the case as frivolous if they win, and a failing of the jury system if they lose. One wonders if they ever saw a meritorious plaintiff’s case.
He’s an MP (Member of Parliament), not the PM (Prime Minister).
Regarding the story it’s important to note that describing the station’s audience as tiny is misleading when you consider their licence allowed them to broadcast to a 28 sq mile area of London – a potential audience of millions.
Also, they were failing miserably before they tried this pathetic and offensive parody – they’d already become unable to pay for their licence and were ready to fold anyway.