[Nottingham] Jack Schofield and libel... longish....

[Matt Hurst]

I'm strictly only twiddling with Linux on a Knoppix disc at the moment, 
till I can justify a bit of upgrading etc. to simplify installing something 
properly (thanks for the advice last year guys, btw) , but I do know a bit 
about legals and the meeja, and such. So I can actually contribute 
something here...

If you want to something corrected in the Guardian, there a couple of 
routes to pursue.

Firstly, email Jack Schofield (jack.schofield at guardian.co.uk, is the usual 
format). His email will be on the website somewhere. Explain politely and 
briefly what particular factual errors he's made, and ask him to correct 
them.  Newspapers have lawyers and other legal types check things, so I 
doubt it is actually libellous in the sense of anything standing up in 
court. My guess he'll get a biggish postbag from that piece and you won't 
be the only one. He should be abiding by the Guardian's editorial code: 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/article/0,5814,642387,00.html

Then the Guardian has a readers' editor, Ian Mayes, whose job it is to deal 
with readers' complaints. His email is reader at guardian.co.uk, Include your 
email to Jack Schofield. Again, courtesy and brevity will get you further 
than a twenty page techie rant.

As a final measure, there's always the Press Complaints Council, though I'm 
not sure what guideline Schofield might've broken with this piece.

I'm not sure what you consider libellous in the article. But here's some 
basic rules of thumb about libel (I'm not a lawyer, just a working hack and 
we have to know the basics. As a disclaimer, I'm not saying this as legal 
advice in any way at all and would recommend you took qualified advice from 
people who know what they're talking about if you're going to pursue the 
legalities).

1. Impugning somebody's professional abilities, or making allegations which 
might damage their professional standing, or business, is libellous, if 
your words might be taken that way by a 'reasonable person'.
2. If something's provably true in court, it can't be libellous.
3. Comments are free (in the speech sense), facts are sacred. Commenting on 
true facts isn't libellous, however unfair the opinion. There's a defence 
called 'fair comment' which basically covers anything that's opinion, 
however unfair it may be and the line between the implying a fact and 
commenting on something keeps libel lawyers busy. As a purely hypothetical 
example which I'm in no way saying is the case, EG, 'Linus Torvalds can't 
write code and is a fraud' is libellous, as it is (a) wrong and (b) impugns 
him professionally. Saying 'The original Linux kernel is a badly written 
piece of software', isn't libellous.
4. Implying somebody's done something for malign motives is libellous, and 
motivation is very difficult to prove.
5. You have to be identify, at most, a limited number of people who have 
been libelled. You can't libel all Linux programmers, though you could 
probably libel, say Mandrake's marketing department. It's a size thing. 
(the alternative is, say, everyone under 5'5 being able to sue Randy 
Newman.... It would just be silly, especially given what vindictive 
bastards shortarses are.)
6. You don't have to name anyone to libel them, just make someone (anyone) 
able to identify them.
7. Libel actions are expensive and unless you're slightly richer than 
Croesus, don't get any illusions about suing. It won't be worth it.
8. Have I Got News For You notwithstanding, using the word 'allegedly' 
makes not a jot of difference to libel.

Hope this helps. Feel free to email me off list if you want.

cheers

Matt