Arrington Loses Libel Suit In UK, Won't Be Visiting
By Tom Foremski - August 3, 2009
![]()
(Photo: Joi)
Mike Arrington, the publisher of Techcrunch lost a libel suit in the UK brought by a former employee. Dennis Howlett, over at ZDNet broke the news this morning: Michael Arrington snared in libel verdict: lessons for us
I'd heard about this story on Friday and that it would break on Monday. It's interesting from the standpoint that talking badly about other people from a prominent media platform can be damaging. That's why the UK has strong libel laws.
Mr Arrington had said some nasty things about Sam Sethi and so Mr Sethi filed a libel suit in the UK, where he lives. Mr Arrington said that since the UK courts had no jurisdiction in the US he wouldn't defend himself. He lost the suit and also lost all rights to appeal because he didn't recognize the courts decision.
This means that Mr Arrington can be arrested the next time he visits the UK or any EU country. Dennis Howlett explains:
Sethi tells me that his costs are of the order of £30,000 and the plaint calls for monetary damages of up to £50,000.
Further since this will constitute a debt to the court, should Arrington attempt to enter the UK without first having settled the matter, he might be liable to immediate arrest and incarceration.
Mr Arrington's response:
I've had to cancel my London FOWA speaking engagement, and certainly won't be visiting that country any time soon. Which is a shame since I have so many friends there.
Foremski's Take: It's a shame that this entire mess took place. Mr Arrington should be aware that using his media platform to say nasty things about someone else carries considerable weight of responsibility. This is why journalists are always very careful in bringing any charges of dishonesty or criminal behavior against anyone, unless they have solid proof, because they understand the responsibility of their position.
Mr Arrington is not a journalist but he is a former lawyer. You would think he would know better.
Instead of avoiding the UK or Europe as a whole Mr Arrington should just pay the 80,000 pounds ($135,600) and learn from his mistake. The award has been promised to charity. Pay up, and chalk it up, imho.
- - -
Please see:
Here's Mike Arrington's side of the story
The Fact And Fiction Of Sam Sethi
Update On Sam Sethi Litigation: We Decline To Participate
Here is Dennis Howlett:
Michael Arrington snared in libel verdict: lessons for us all
« US CTO Aneesh Chopra Coming To Silicon Valley | Main | The Chip Industry's Boom And Bust Cycles And The Failure Of Business Intelligence »
August 3, 2009 | Permalink | Comment | Category: | Subscribe to SVW
- Top Stories:
- Technology In The Service Of Humanity
- The Death Of The Search Algorithm? Techmeme Has Six Editors
- TEDxSF - Little TED Just Like The Big TED
- SNCR Research: Social Media IS Influencing Business Decisions
- What's Next? Beyond Real-Time...
- PearlTrees: A Novel Approach To Human Mapping Of The Internet
- MediaWatch Analysis Part II: Google Has More To Lose Than Murdoch
- MediaWatch Analysis: Murdoch Will Negotiate Payment For Access To Basket Of Content With GOOG et al
- WeekendWatcher: The Sheer Number Of Things Will Devalue Them
- ChipWatch - Where Will The Next Generation Of Engineers Come From?
- Public Healthcare Could Cut Startup Costs And Help Spur Innovation
- Is GOOG's $750m AdMob Buy Strategic Or Dumb? An alternate view...
Comments (4)
Foremski - I respect that you opinion is that Mike A. should pay Sam Sethi whatever he demands - I don´t agree. But IMO Sam Sethi should - in case he gets paid - hand the money over to the people he hired and had employed for months without pay - that is what the matter is really about.
Posted: August 3, 2009 2:31 PM
Karin: the suit is about libel it's not about anything else....
Posted: August 3, 2009 3:28 PM
Tom,
What everyone is missing here is that Arrington in no way libeled Sethi. He reported factually the information he received from people like myself and the other Blognation editors that Sam (now admittedly) had lied to for months about the impending funding.
Further Sam has acknowledged (to a journalist no less) that his entire mission was to restore his damaged reputation. The problem is that he damaged his reputation himself by deceiving me and many others like me to work for month after month on the promise that funds were in the bank and payment was forthcoming.
Now Sam is claiming that people had agreed to work for free until and unless funding was secured. If this is the case then why does everyone involved have email from Sam where he promises to pay them soon? I mean, if none of us were to be paid until and unless funding had been received then what was Sam doing promising to pay us unless:
A) the funds were in and he was planning on distributing them asap or
B) he had lied about the funding and people expected to be paid because he had said they would be paid
Doubt this? I'm happy to send you copies of my Skype transcript where Sam specifically says that funds will be wired to my bank account the very next day. I can show you email where Sam promised that he could pay me on time, as promised and that he could pay my travel as promised too.
I can also show you Skype transcripts where he apologizes to me for lying about firing me and about having the funds.
Libel is when someone knowingly lies about someone. Perjury is when someone knowingly lies to the court. In this case the charge should be perjury and it should be filed against Sam Sethi.
You are pointing the finger of blame at the wrong guy.
Sethi has admitted to having lied in multiple venues. Why anyone would believe a word he says now is a mystery to me.
What is particularly disgusting is his claim that he wanted to pay the Bloggers at Blognation(Wait, he claims he doesn't owe them anything because they had agreed to work for free -notice a contradiction here?) or worse, his claim that he wants to pay something to Marc Orchant's family.
I have news for you. I created the fund for Marc's family. I saw every penny that went into it and the name of every contributor. Sam didn't give a penny.
Worse, when Marc died Sam owed him nearly $5,000 for travel and two and a half months salary for his work at Blognation. Has Sam offered to pay Marc's Widow a cent? No.
He is simply using Marc's death and the possibility of paying his Widow what he owed Marc as a means to generate sympathy from the community. This is simply sick because it is just as false as everything else Sam has said.
I can just about guarantee you that if Sam actually collected a penny from this BS suit, it would go the the SSETHI Personal Charity and not a dime would be seen by the bloggers who he owes or the widow of my deceased friend.
You should clear up what you said, Mike isn't in the wrong here.
Oliver Starr
Posted: August 8, 2009 4:58 AM
Oliver: Thanks for the extra information on this.
Posted: August 10, 2009 12:54 PM