I was sued for libel under an unjust law

Having the burden of proof on the defendant is a <i>terrible</i> idea. The imbalance in the UK libel system has given rise to libel tourism [1]. This is something the UK has been seeking to reform [2].<p>If you're a public figure or an organisation then we have to accept that some people are going to say some crazy things otherwise it would be too easy to use the courts to silence legitimate criticism.<p>As for Elsevier's package pricing strategy, it's interesting how similar this is to how cable companies price offerings.<p>In the case of cable companies (IMHO) we need structural separation between those that own the physical network and those that provide services on it. Around the world telecommunications policy is slowly heading in this direction in relation to the "last mile".<p>In the case of academic journals it seems academics are victims of themselves basically. Prestigious journals carry weight because academics give them weight. Promotions and continued employment sometimes revolve around getting published. At that point the academics are captive to those that provide those journals.<p>Previously distribution was a key problem. Now obviously it isn't. Some disciplines have taken a far more open approach to publication and peer review. This problem will probably be solved as more disciplines get organized and go their own way.<p>[1]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism</a><p>[2]: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8379196/New-rules-to-discourage-libel-tourism-in-Britain.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8379196...</a>

Nice. This reminds me of one of El Naschie's most awesome papers, published in 'his' Elsevier journal "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals": <a href="http://www.el-naschie.net/bilder/file/Photo-Gallery.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.el-naschie.net/bilder/file/Photo-Gallery.pdf</a>

The linked article from Nature here<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/libel-win-reveals-need-for-reform-1.10981" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/libel-win-reveals-need-for-reform...</a><p>and the accompanying Nature editorial<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/487139a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v487/n7406/full/487139a...</a><p>give a lot more background on the details of this particular case, and on which defenses to libel claims are available under British law. Proposals for legal reform in Britain are also discussed at those links.

&#62; many of which pondered the <i>texture of time and space</i>. Physicists questioned the quality of the papers and the lack of proper peer review.<p>Being curious about his theories, I've located this...<p><a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohamed_El_Naschie" rel="nofollow">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mohamed_El_Naschie</a><p>Which brought me to this...<p>"E-infinity theory"<p>"By introducing a space-time which is not only four-dimensional but also infinite-dimensional, and by using hyperbolic random fractals, I was able to precisely model this stormy ocean in which relativity and quantum mechanics can live side by side."

Great news, but I wished the article went into more detail about the original lawsuit and the strategy used to win the case.<p>To me, the big story in all of this is Elsevier’s "package sales strategy". They are a much bigger foe, so accusing them of wrong doings directly would be a much bigger fight. Their dominance in the industry will hopefully soon evaporate.

Hence the joke "I'm going to sue you in England."<p>In America the burden is on the person being defamed to prove his case, including that the stated facts are unjust.<p>We have a lot of crazies here saying crazy things. It's wonderful.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.<p>In 1817, William Hone, a satirist, defended himself against multiple charges under Britain's then-antiquated libel laws. He won, despite all odds. Read Ben Wilson's recent "The Laughter of Triumph: William Hone and the Fight for the Free Press" for more.<p>What boggles my mind, what truly causes me little conniptions, is that even after supposed reform of the various UK libel laws, they are still used today to silence one's opponents. IANAL, etc., but these laws do seem, uh, heavy handed and unfair, arming the slighted with fully automatic sledgehammer launchers to use against any foe, real or perceived.

Another case that HN'ers may be familiar with is that of Simon Singh. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh</a> Its a joy to read his books and he hangs out on HN at times too.<p>Why UK libel laws must change:<p><a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/16/qa-with-simon-singh-why-uk-libel-law-must-change" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/16/qa-with-simon...</a><p>Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the War on Science:<p><a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/mf_qa_singh/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/mf_qa_singh/</a>

For another case of sanity reigning supreme after an English libel law suit, there's Simon Singh's victory against the British Chiropractic Association, after an article he wrote in the Guardian:<p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-li...</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/libel-law" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/10/libel-la...</a><p>See also: <a href="http://www.libelreform.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.libelreform.org</a>

I'm a big fan of the English libel law; to my mind, if you write something about someone, you should bear responsibility for ensuring that what you write is true, and have the proof to back it up.<p>Placing the responsibility on the person you're writing about seems just plain unfair to me.<p>The only problem with the English libel laws is it takes so long to resolve a case. I don't understand why it takes so much time and expense, and would prefer this aspect to be fixed first - if at all possible.

The hilarious thing is that English libel law has been shitty and everyone has known it for literally hundreds of years.

Are American's protected by the SPEECH Act now?