h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In the UK the law of defamation has two distinct parts: libel and slander. Libel is where the allegation is PUBLISHED, slander where it is spoken. It is also one of the few laws where it is incumbent on the plaintiff (the person libelled) to prove their case (annoying a badger is one of the others).

PUBLISHED used to be relatively straightforward, it simply meant that the allegation was printed. These days, it includes filmed and recorded media, internet, text messaging and the rest. Anything where it is possible for a permanent record to be held.

Slander is still the spoken word, and requires a witness, who will take an oath in court.

Also, the standards are different between the two. For libel, the "right-thinking people" test, as evidenced in the earlier post to this thread applies. There has been a lot of discussion in subsequent posts about bigotry, homophobia etc. later in this thread. Honourable though most of this may be to people who consider themselves open-minded, tolerant etc., I'm afraid it has no basis in law (and whoever it was who characterised people who vote Conservative as Right-wing bigots is simply demonstrating the same prejudice in reverse) - if the majority of right-thinking people think it is libellous, then it is.

In order for an allegation to be libellous, it must satisfy three conditions:

1. It is untrue;
2. It is published;
3. It causes right-minded people to avoid, shun etc.

The plaintiff (i.e. the person libelled) must prove all of these. 2 is easy - probably the cause of the action in the first place. 3 may be proved by cancellation of work, contracts, TV appearances, promotion (tough one to prove, will probably involve a positive outcome from an industrial tribunal first), and anything else you may think of.

Proving 1 is the tricky one. How do you prove a negative?

Some pointers...

1. The allegation must be UNTRUE. If you are gay, and the allegation is that you are gay, you have not been libelled.

2. Those "right-thinking people"...who they? Well, the judicial system selects 12 people randomly from your local area, known as the jury. Also known as "people who couldn't get out of jury service", or "young, idealistic nerds who think that they can make a difference in the judicial system".

For slander, it's even worse. Not only must you have a witness who's prepared to turn up in court and swear on your behalf, but the standard of defamation is much higher. It's no good that people might "shun or avoid" you any more...the allegation must now be that you've committed a criminal offence.

But not just any criminal offence. The offence of which you are accused (important point here: in civil cases, the PLAINtiff comPLAINs to the defendant; in criminal cases, the CROWN PROSECUTES the ACCUSED) must be one that is punished by imprisonment. So what, you may ask? Well, there is one crime that is stil punishable by death (not imprisonment), so you can still call someone this, in the face of witnesses, without being indicted under the law of slander: traitor.

So, homosexuality. Not illegal, under either criminal or civil law, within the age of majority - no different to any other sexual act.

This argument is so gay.

Odd, and thank you. However, I still stand by the assertion that (despite what the legal system may say) that making 'right minded people' think badly of you shouldn't be a requirement, because I don't think a 'right minded person' is a very accurate (or helpful) term.

'This argument is so gay.'

Perhaps. Ask Hoovooloo, he's the one who started it. (Or was he? Am I just libelling them both? )

- Jordan

>> 'right minded people' <<

Speaking of how the meanings of words doth change, mewonders if some folks earlier may have translated 'right minded' to mean 'right winged'.

I can understand the dispair of ever convincing a jury of polite society about the difference between words and sticks-n-stones which can really hurt you.

But for the record let it be known that 'right minded' means correct, balanced and informed. It is mere coincidence in this case that 'right winged' also means these same fine qualities.


~jwf~

hi Jordan,

<>

Well, if Member isn't Hoovooloo I will eat my hat! If I had one. I don't even own the proper amount of shoes in Hoo's opinion.

I know a lesbian history professor who is now working at a Catholic girl's school (she really needs the job). And if it came out that she was gay she would probably lose her job. So when there are family activities at the school my friend cannot invite her partner to attend and otherwise has to pretend she is not who she is.

This is not only sad but pathetic. The friend in question is an excellent teacher and has amazing qualifications. So in her case it probably would be quite defamatory for someone to 'accuse' her of being a lesbian as this would threaten her job. Because what would be the point of someone doing this? Other than to make her seem inappropriate for her job just because of her sexual orientation?

*sigh*

az

It is up to the jury (those right-thinking people) to decide whether being called gay is libellous or not (providing the other requirements have been met, i.e. that it has been published and is untrue). The nature of the allegation is probably going to be a key issue here. If it is printed that "Mr X is gay", probably not. If the allegation is "Mr X is a screaming poo-pushing uphill gardener, who b****s boys on a nightly basis", the jury may reach a different conclusion, based on an assumption that people would avoid/shun a person so described.

>>'right winged' also means these same fine qualities.<<
jwf, I am sorry, but I just can't agree!(About right winged, I mean...)

Della, I just can't agree with you! I think ~jwf~ is absolutely correct.

The labels 'left' and 'right' have been badly abused by the press in the two hundred years since the French assembly drew very clear sides on a few issues.

In fact they mean very little these days except for the purposes of stereotypical name-calling. No 'right minded' person would ever actually claim to be either a 'leftist' or 'right-winged'; these labels are always stuck on by others in disagreement.

These kinds of gross generalisations are a form of prejudice. Not to mention the essential folly of limiting thought to a 'two party' system or polarising debate to disallow any third, (or more) points of view.

To me 'conservative' means thoughtful and cautious while making sure one is well informed to consider potential pitfalls before embarking on any new course. Like the Boy Scouts, 'be prepared'. In that sense I am conservative. By my reasoning, anyone who studies a map before setting out on a trip is being 'conservative' and anyone who doesn't is being 'adventurous'. Adventure is fine. And fun. I love adventure. But it's no way to run a railroad.

So when I say I am 'conservative', that does not mean I am a war mongering free market capitalist. On the contrary, I consider myself a humanist and a socialist to the extent that most human beings deserve better than they have. If I had my way, a few greedy b*****ds would be taken out and shot with arms from their own factories, drowned in their 'own' oil and force-fed their own 'patented' prescription drugs and then ground up in their horded foodstuffs (especially the GM mutations) and fed to McCows.


~jwf~

Just thought I`d throw this in:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8051460%255E13762,00.html

Legally (in the UK) Her Majesty's Stationary Office is the place to look: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/

"I am therefore interested to hear from any NON-bigots who can suggest a convincing reason why suggesting someone is gay might be considered defamatory."

I think this shows that you don't live in the US. You can call homophobes biggots and not-right-thinking, but they make up a large portion of the US population, many of them in positons of influence, such as the Senate, House of Reperesentatives, and, I think, the presidency.

1) Certantly. Just because the people who complain about it are biggots doesn't make it les hurtful, and there certainly are a lot of poeple who'd have all kinds of hatred and ridicule and contempt for homosexuals.

2) Certainly. There are a lot of homophobes out there, whether you like it or not. You can say they aren't mainstream society, but there are so many of them its hard to see what difference it makes.

3) No.

4) Yes. It may not be relevant for most jobs, but that doesn't mean that you can't get fired or downsized or mistreated at work if your boss knows you're gay and is a homophobe. It isn't right, but if you lose your job because you're gay and your boss doesn't like it, knowing he or she's wrong won't feed you.




Being called gay might be defamatory because we don't live in a perfect world. There are plenty of biggots out there who will discriminate against someone who they know or think to be gay. Thus by announcing that someone is gay, whether or not it is true, a person is exposing tem to a lot of discrimination and mistreatment. This may even be considered worse than it seems in the sence that the discrimination and mistreatment is completely undeserved. It's not right, but it's reality.

I see I'm not the only one who thinks Member is Hoovooloo. He/she/it/they seems, well, Hoovoolooish to me. And that is not meant as an insult.

Affirmative, though it is odd.

BTW, Daneel, I'm just starting 'Caves of Steel' - after reading the whole 'Foundation' saga! How vastly annoying it is to know how everything ends!

- Jordan

Sadly, people tend to be afraid of what is unknown to them. Previously in our history people were burned at the stake for having special cognitive powers or being well-educated in herb lore.

I think (and someone please correct me if I am wrong about this) that in other ancient times and civilizations homosexuality was not seen as unnatural. Yet, until relatively recently it was still 'illegal' to be homosexual in England.

When will people stop being so afraid? How does a sexual orientation make any difference at all to a person's abilities or to their contributions to society?

I'm afraid that the United States is going backwards in terms of embracing fundamentalist Christianity as a norm once again. Surely any open-minded and clear thinking person must see this as a giant step back.

What next? If the fundamentalists take over again? Already there are moves in the US Senate to stop abortion on demand. So then women will end up seeking abortions in unsafe situations. Religion and politics should be kept separate. And really, must be kept separate, to ensure equal rights for all.

az

It was illegal to be gay in England, but not to be lesbian, because Queen Victoria didn't believe lesbians could exist so she didn't make it illegal...

hi Cyzaki,

It is very odd that homosexuality between women was very seldom 'outlawed' anywhere (as far as I know, anyhow). Even the Bible makes more of a thing against male homosexuals. Though I am told that - somewhere - lesbian relationships are also condemned in the Bible.

I will probably let myself in for a lot of flak here but I think that because it has usually been men running governments that male homosexuality has been an issue. It is my personal experience that heterosexual men (not all of course!) often feel threatened by the idea of male homosexuality.

I think even in Victorian times it was considered okay for women to have their 'special women friends'. The difference now is that lesbians are demanding their basic human right, and rightly so, to live openly as part of a lesbian couple. And of course all homosexuals, male or female, in my humble opinion, are due this right.

It's as if people in power somehow think that by maintaining a stance that homosexuality is not 'normal' and by denying people their basic human rights that it will then stop happening? Duh.

az

Basic human rights:

Life
Liberty
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Freedom of association

"To live openly as openly as part of a lesbian couple"? It's not really up there with the big ones, is it?

Reddyfreddy,

<<"To live openly as openly as part of a lesbian couple"? It's not really up there with the big ones, is it?>>


In fact, it is part and parcel of the basic rights you have stated.

Freedom of life and liberty, not to mention speech and association.



az

"BTW, Daneel, I'm just starting 'Caves of Steel' - after reading the whole 'Foundation' saga! How vastly annoying it is to know how everything ends!"

I read them out of order, too. I'd read all the Foundation books before I started Caves of Steel. And I'd read Robots and Empire first, too.