> What about the American tradition of presumption of innocence? Tell that to the innocent at Gitmo.
On an abstracted issue, raised later in the thread: English law was changed in 1996 to essentially combine "libel" and "slander" as "defamation". http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htm It was felt that - with new media - the distinction was hard to maintain - a "slanderous" (originally, verbal) comment might (with new technology) be recorded, digitised, processed and otherwise recorded for posterity - it therefore had the same legal weight as libel, which was always regarded as permanently recorded and therefore damaging into the indefinite future. But. In order to be "defamed" you have to have some "fame" to start with. It really is the literal interpretation - "de-faming" is the removal of some kind of "fame". It gets a lot more complex. And it gets VERY complex with product libel, because the complainant has to prove actual pecuniary loss. Which means not only proving that the alleged libel cost you a deal, but also that the deal you lost would have been profitable - which means opening your company's books to the court. Thank heavens it's Friday, and even the Friday before Christmas. Best to all. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
