" 'cause bad men with riches are the worst sons-of-b*tches! Yes, libel mis the rich man's friend!" I award you 555 in damages. ;D

libel IS

We have similar problems on this side of the pond... Unfortunately, those with the power to change the laws are lawyers themselves, soooooooo.... ;)

You could always break away from the Crown and form your own nation ... it worked for us! :-)

One hates to disagree publicly with one's collaborator, but libel cases are *very* difficult to win i the US. Truth itself is an *absolute* defense, and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant not only spoke falsely, but did so either with knowing malice, or with a reckless and wanton disregard for the truth. -- AND that the defendant suffered provable harm to income, reputation, etc.

Observe what's hurled on TV and radio talk shows, and even the tabloids -- it's a bit ugly, but much less uglier than censorship. Good luck with that campaign, and if it doesn't work out, revolt. :)

OMR - damn, should have thought of that couplet myself :-)

FG - technically, it should be the politicians, not the lawyers, who have the power to change the laws.. but as TT suggests it is far harder to prove libel over there, which is why Justice Eady's position on allowing anything somebody in the UK might possibly have read to be tried for libel over here is so dodgy, and why people try to get libel suits heard here

TT - Have you seen the old Ealing Comedy film "Passport to Pimlico"? But yes, the requirements for a libel case over there seem actually quite sensible - especially as here you can end up seriously out of pocket even if you said something true and won your libel case. Though some of what I've seen on talk shows over there seems libellous even by US definitions..

well written

FG was referring to the fact that the overwhelming majority of members of Congress are lawyers, or at least attended law school, and many of the Presidents, as well. So politician = lawyer is often true, and they make the laws mostly to protect and enrich themselves. (Which is why Reagan, the non-law-school actor, was a great Pres --couldn't resist.)

Haven't seen the flic. As far as talk shows, there is yet another (IMHO) sensible provision in our laws: That when you *voluntarily choose* to become a public figure (politician, movie star, rock star, etc.), you make yourself a target for public criticism and ridicule that the ordinary private citizen should not expect or have to bear.

As 1940s President Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." .... Or don't enter the kitchen (public life) in the first place.

Interesting point, symbolizing new dilemma of the World Wide Web: I post a parody on a US-based site, as a US citizen/resident. Can people in all 167 other countries (or whatever the current count is; it seems to change daily) sue me under the laws of *their* nation, and do I have to respond to 167 suits? .... same issue with kidpwrn: Age of "consent" (adulthood; ability to give legal consent) is lower in, say, Netherlands than US (of course, because they specialize in the Nether Lands -- I *kill* me!) -- so a pic posted there might be perfectly legal, but illegal to view in the US, or even to travel through the US portion of the Internet pipeline.

Laws didn't anticipate the "global village' nature of the Internet. Stay tuned. (And the British view *does* sound idiotic. Looong fall down from the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment.)