<< So by LM's own
testimony, this case was not about press coverage but about the truth of
whether Muslim prisoners were imprisoned.
And on that core truth, the jury ruled against LM.
>>
Right, but in the US, since the matter is one of public interest, this falsehood, which also had to be found to be damaging, would not be actionable unless LM was reckless,a high standard to meet. The upshot is that LM may be put out of business. Now I don't care for its views in the main, from what I have seen of them as posted here by JIm H., but I think that is a bad thing. It would shut down yet another more or less independent and perhaps cranky but anyway nonstandard perspective, incidentally transferring money to the press barons. Our constitutional law of libel makes this much harder to happen, and that is better.
Btw, the jury also believed that LM had done, what, half a million pounds of reputation damage to the plaintiff--absurd. No one in England cares what LM thinks. I would be surprised if the report, if false, did five pounds of reputational damage to the plaintiff. That makes me doubt that the jury decided the factual part of the verdict on the merits. I wouldnm't be surprised if they got it right--I think LM has been apologizing for atrocities by the rump Yugo state (which are not, to give Lm its due, as bada s NATO, Blair, and Clinton made out, But can you really give much credit to a jury verdict that gives those kinds of damages in a case like this?
--jks