Stalin's grandson sues newspaper for libel.

[Gargantou]

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE57U4WH20090831

Basically, here's the jist of it.

An established Russian newspaper prints an article in which it claims Stalin was responsible for millions of deaths during his rule, going as far as to claim he personally signed some mass-killing orders to the Politburo.

His grandson is now suing both said paper, and the journalist who wrote said article. He is claiming these are all lies and are defamining his great grandfathers reputation.

Apparently Stalin was a very effective and good leader, who did nothing bad to his people!

Anyway, I personally find this scary as hell, especially how the Russian government itself is trying to polish up the image of Stalin.

Imagine the uproar it'd cause in the world if it was the German government that was trying to improve the image of Adolf Hitler?

 

[Warped]

Sometimes stupidity is passed down generation to generation

 

[Shakermaker]

Imagine the uproar it'd cause in the world if it was the German government that was trying to improve the image of Adolf Hitler?

This. Bodycount-wise Stalin even trumps Hitler. Not to mention the mass deportations of ethnic peoples to Russify regions. Joseph Vissarionovich can be credited for making the Soviet Union a world power, but he has a lot of blood on his hands.

 

[Adabiviak]

That's pretty ballsy. I would imagine there's not much love for Stalin left in the motherland, but to be fair, I've never been there, have never met anyone from there, and am lousy with Russian history.

 

[Sulkdodds]

There's been a recent trend of people using libel laws to restrain the freedom of the press - especially in the UK, where the person making the statement must prove it is true, rather than the accuser proving it is untrue. Currently, Silvio Burlusconi is attempting to bring a prosecution against newspapers that have criticised him. German doctor Mathias Rath (failed when he) sued the Guardian for documenting his activities in South Africa, encouraging HIV victims to drop their drugs and take his herbal medicines. And that's not to mention the hilarious ongoing battles between Private Eye and Tesco. But this represents a kind of satirical apotheosis of the trend - it's as if it came out of a political cartoon.

 

[Krynn72]

where the person making the statement must prove it is true, rather than the accuser proving it is untrue.

I support this.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hello. I'm very rich. I don't like what you've been writing about me, so here's what I'm going to do. I am going to hire the most expensive and specialised lawyers, lawyers who exist in a burgeoning libel industry and who make no attempt to limit their fees. I can afford them; if you lose the case, you won't be able to. They're very good and they will demand of you extremely stringent standards of evidence in a five year trial, which will stress you greatly and, if you lose, deprive you of your entire livelihood. And I can do this at any time, because to pull you into an enormous libel trial I just have to make a claim and then it's you who has to make all the effort. Let's be clear here: by default, any statement is false. Any statement you make. Free speech is wonderful. Hell, you don't even have to live in this country - as long as I can show in court that one person within these borders would have had the opportunity to read your words, you are culpable for my hilarious million pound trial. Ha! You think you're okay because you're writing on the web? The ISPs are legally culpable even for comments that are written on your blog. If I threaten them with legal action they'll probably just take down your website. So yeah, about those lawyers...

Oh, you don't want to do all that? No problem. Just sign here. I trust I won't be seeing that article ever again.

 

[Gargantou]

That's pretty ballsy. I would imagine there's not much love for Stalin left in the motherland, but to be fair, I've never been there, have never met anyone from there, and am lousy with Russian history.

Actually, in a state-sponsored poll last year, Stalin was voted the third most popular person of all time in Russia.

And recently the Moscow subway was even decorated in his HONOR. Not to mention the teacher guidelines for teachers in Russia now state that teachers should refer to Stalin as a very effective leader who modernized the Soviet Union, the guidelines make no mention at all of the horrible things he did.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

...They're rebuilding the regime...

 

[Sulkdodds]

No, they're rebuilding regime - rebuilding regiment. As much as the current order depends on money, it also depends on deep nationalism, xenophobia and a quasi-fascist commitment to political Unity (the name of Putin's party) above all else. Stalin's supremacy plays into a myth of national continuity which places the great Mother Russia in opposition to the western states, which Putin has taken care to spend his entire premiership antagonising. The new regime is not the same as the old regime. But the old is being integrated into the justifications of the new.

And to expand my sarcastic response to Krynn: when the burden of proof lies that way it basically allows anyone who is sufficiently confindent in their capacity to carry out a trial (read: anyone sufficiently rich) to, by default, challenge any statement whatsoever and, without needing to show any proof, instantly drag the other person into legal proceedings. That person might be able to show the truth of what they say, if they stick at it. But how many people are going to go for that, when it can cost so much and take so long?

 

[Gargantou]

Well said Sulkdodds, it's exactly those kinda legal issues that the Church of Scientology for example use to silence their critics, they sue'em and they get so many lawyers that the people they sue feel there's no point in trying to fight'em and simply agree to their demands.

After all, I think Scientology as an organization is responsible for the most libel/defamation lawsuits in the US?

 

[The Monkey]

Well, Russia has been idolizing strong leaders ever since Ivan the Terrible. First the tsar, then the communist leaders, now the "democratic" presidents, they have all come to power because they've been seen as strong men capable of leading the state forward. Russia hasn't got a trace of democratic tradition in its history, you cannot expect the people to suddenly start agreeing with the liberal democracies of the West just because Soviet ended. Under Stalin Soviet became a superpower and one of the two most important countries in the world, it would be strange if a some alleged human rights abuses would prevent the Russian people from attributing this to Stalin.

 

[Shakermaker]

For anyone interested in Stalin the politician: this book is highly recommended. It reads almost like a novel and it is highly informative, both on the historical and the personal side of Stalin.

 

[No Limit]

it would be strange if a some alleged human rights abuses would prevent the Russian people from attributing this to Stalin.

I'm not sure "some" and "alleged" are good adjectives to use there.

 

[The Monkey]

I'm not sure "some" and "alleged" are good adjectives to use there.

Well, I was talking from a supposed Russian nationalist's point of view. I'm in no way denying Stalin's crimes.