Amnesty International backing down (hiding its report) when threatened with JKR's lawsuits just shows how weak the liberal human rights framework really is. It never seems to flinch when governments criticize it, but the moment an influential Westerner pushes back, it suddenly loses its nerve.
It likely also has to do with the difference between UK and US libel law.
In the US, true statements are never libelous (or slanderous). Further, since Rowling is a public figure, she would have to prove that Amnesty International acted with reckless disregard for the truth (with "actual malice").
In the UK, as far as I can tell, true statements can be libelous.
I suspect Amnesty International did the calculus of "How many people have already seen this? Will they keep circulating the tapes? How much will it cost us to defend this? Can we successfully defend it under UK law?" and decided that Streisand-effect-ing the report would be a better use of their time and money.
Somehow, I don't buy that
i don't disagree that rights-based campaigning is liberal and tends towards stasis, but libel law and its misuses in the uk are a genuine and well documented issue that has been used to financially destroy or harrass people ranging from investigative journalists to victims of sexual assault/harrassment - and particularly on the investigative front, the uk is well known for libel tourism where billionaires use its extremely loose definitions re. libel/slander & the burden of proof lying with the defendant to prove that they were reporting the truth, to shut down investigations into corruption and human rights abuses across the world. in that regard jkr is using a tool provided to her by the law, thru the services provided for the rich to protect their interests, and must be seen in that light. in amnesty's case, the question they face is whether or not their funding reserves will withstand being taken to court by a billionaire who has publicly encouraged all the named orgs to bring defamation suits in english courts. if carole cadwallader ended up on the hook for 1 million pounds in damages, despite a court ruling in her favour re. public interest, how much more so a case bankrolled by this much money?
