When Libel Becomes a Gag

If this blog isn't here, then it will have been closed down by lawyers representing Alisher Usmanov, and you will not be reading this.

Here is a curious thing.

The current controversy about Mr Usmanov attempting to silence bloggers for reporting the claims by Craig Murray, appears to be about who annulled Mr Usmanov's conviction. He served six years imprisonment in Soviet times; he claims for political crimes, other's claim for common criminality. Mr Usmanov says that the annulment was by Micheal Gorbachov.

Yet according to this article on RUSNET, attributed to the Evening Standard:

" Yesterday in an exclusive interview with Financial Mail, Usmanov said allegations of mafia links were 'complete rubbish'. Usmanov aides last night strongly rebutted the claims over his past and his 'fabricated' guilty verdict by a Communist court.

They stressed that the Soviet conviction was annulled by the Uzbekistan supreme court in 2000. A source in Moscow close to the tycoon said: 'He was unjustly tried and spent six years in a Soviet prison. He had fallen victim to the lawlessness which was typical in the late Brezhnev era.' "

If this information is correct, then it could not possibly have been Mikhail Gorbachev who annulled his convictions, as he was overthrown by Boris Yeltsin in 1991: 9 years before.

The report explains that Mr Usmanov was convicted by a military court on charges of corruption and extortion. This article from the Daily Mail offers more background to the circumstances that led to the conviction:

"After graduating with a degree in international law in 1976, Usmanov returned to his native Uzbekistan to work as a junior scientist at the Uzbek branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Tashkent.

He also began dabbling in business but his career had scarcely begun when it came to an abrupt halt. In August 1980, when he was 27 years old, he was convicted of fraud, corruption and theft of state property. He spent six years of his eight-year sentence in a Soviet jail."

It is unclear why the current situation has developed. And how it can be just for newspapers to print these things but not bloggers.

If you believe this definition from Sahota Solicitors as a guide to what is not a libel:

"the offending words were true
the offending words were fair comment on a matter of public interest
the offending words fall under one of the exemptions to libel"

Then it would seem that the claims made by Mr Murray, repeated and circulated via the internet, do not constitute a libel. Since they would appear to be true and be fair comment on a matter of public interest.

I took five minutes to google these articles, I am sure that given a few days anyone could find proof of the validity of all of the statements contained in Mr Murray's article.

It may be that those suppressed by the actions of Mr Usmanov's lawyers, Schillings, might wish to make a complaint to the Law Society. Since on the face of things they have launched a vexatious law suit, aimed at undermining reasonable free speech, in order to misrepresent their client in a business deal.

There is also an issue about the ISP and web-hosing company. They are happy enough to take the customers money, but rather quick to the pull the plug at the first sign of a solicitors letter. Not everything on the net is of the 'Janet is a fat cow' variety. Isn't it about time they grew up and faced down these legal phishing trips?

peace:)