Comments: The Telegraph responds
Comment by Dean Esmay:

I hope we're missing something here....

Posted at 2004-12-03 09:42:42 [PermaLink]
Comment by oldejoe:

this is a civil matter that does not involve the state so how does the "freedom of expression" arguement come into play? This is not a rights issue.... with this said, i'm with you in the truth of the story..

Posted at 2004-12-03 10:35:18 [PermaLink]
Comment by Sigivald:

old: Does not involve the state?

Odd. Sure seems like it does to me. Mr. Galloway is attempting (so far successfully) to punish someone for publishing information about him which is, as near as can be told (and I imagine that if it were false, Mr. Galloway or his attorney might have mentioned that at some point, no?) is factually true.

He's using the power of the state and its libel laws to silence someone saying true things about him, because those true things hurt his reputation.

As an American, I have this odd, crazy idea that anyone should be able to say any true thing about anyone else, without fear of legal repercussion.

That the action is civil rather than criminal does not mean the state is not involved, or that freedom of expression is not affected; after all, taking a giant pile of money is a punishment, just as is imprisonment, even if they're not the same punishemnt.

Posted at 2004-12-03 14:26:23 [PermaLink]
Comment by Ran:

"Astounding"? That Galloway would go on the attack and not defence? Hmmm. What's the latest flavour of troll?

Posted at 2004-12-03 16:29:04 [PermaLink]
Comment by DaninVan:

Did you read the comments at the Johann Hari link?
Don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Posted at 2004-12-04 01:17:42 [PermaLink]
Post a comment

All fields are required. HTML tags are disabled, but URLs will automatically be turned into hyperlinks. Your e-mail address will not be posted anywhere on the site.
You must preview your message before posting.