[cstross]

1. UK != England and Wales. (Scottish law is radically different -- based on defamation rather than libel/slander -- and oddly enough, Scotland isn't a libel shopping destination.)

2. The English libel law (which is what's up for reform this year) was pushed through in the 18th century as an alternative to the dueling field for blue-bloods with swords to defend their honour. It succeeded admirably in reducing the death rate, but the challenge/defense model implicit in a mediated replacement for dueling between peers doesn't transfer well to a situation where we have corporations using it as a vehicle for SLAPPs.

I'd really like to see, as a principle of law, the axiom that corporations do not have a personal reputation that can be impugned-- that reputation only applies to living human beings. As an example of why, consider the McLibel Case: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/McLibel

[tzs]

> I'd really like to see, as a principle of law, the axiom that corporations do not have a personal reputation that can be impugned-- that reputation only applies to living human beings.

So when someone goes to forums and posts outright lies about a company (e.g., claiming that the company's software surreptitiously loads child pornography on to your computer so they can blackmail you), what recourse (if any) do you think the company should have?

[cstross]

Two words: public relations.

The corporation speaks with a much louder voice than the individual.

(Moreover, web fora are the internet equivalent of a crowded bar: the law is a very blunt instrument indeed when it comes to dealing with words uttered in the heat of the moment during an ongoing conversation.)

[Tyrannosaurs]

Sorry, I live in Scotland but still get sloppy with UK / England.