.              

The Lost Perle

The Price of Power, Hersh notes that Perle was recorded with a wiretap discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy when Perle was working in the Nixon administration.

Atrios: 03/13/03

The New York Sun reports that Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, intends to file a libel suit in a U.K. court against New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh over an article exploring potential conflicts of interest between Perle's foreign policy role and his business interests.

Perle recently made a splash on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer where he likened Hersh to a terrorist after being questioned about this by the host. Even Blitzer, who normally gushes like a schoolboy in love around anyone who is that close to big missiles, was momentarily shocked out of his usual obeisance by Perle's comments.

Hersh and Perle do have a bit of a history. In the former's book, The Price of Power, Hersh notes that Perle was recorded with a wiretap discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy when Perle was working in the Nixon administration.

So, why is Perle announcing his intention to file suit in a court in the United Kingdom? After all, Seymour Hersh is an American journalist writing for an American publication. As the Sun reports, and Perle is well aware, it is much easier to win a libel case in the U.K. than it is here in the U.S. This probably comes as a shock to anyone who has perused the rabidly colorful British tabloids, which generally make the New York Post look like the Christian Science Monitor, but it is nonetheless true. By the standards established in the 1964 Sullivan vs. New York Times Co. Supreme Court case, mounting a successful libel case in the U.S. against a public figure, which Perle clearly is, requires proving that the writer knowingly published false information with malicious intent. In the U.K., however, there is no extra latitude provided when writing about public figures. In addition, U.K. libel law puts the burden of proving that a statement is true on the defendant, rather than on the plaintiff demonstrating that it is false. It is not even necessary to demonstrate that the writer knew something was false - that it cannot be proven true is enough. This unreasonably high standard undoubtedly has a chilling effect on journalists writing about high profile figures with deep pockets.

Fortunately, those who attempt to abuse Britain's libel laws occasionally find themselves hung by their own hubris. Politician and author Jeffrey Archer was found guilty of perverting the course of justice and perjury as a result of the case he filed and sentenced to four years in prison. Holocaust denier David Irving was left financially destitute, with what was left of his reputation destroyed (which at that point was essentially limited to admiration from Christopher Hitchens), after losing his libel case against Penguin Books and author Deborah Lipstadt. However, these happy outcomes shouldn't ease our concerns about the increasingly international reach of such laws. Defending oneself against a libel lawsuit is difficult and expensive. It is too often easier simply to settle, and easier still to not go there in the first place.

http://www.nypress.com

Power Search