Keira Knightley's "Libel"

Although I didn't see the original article, I am disturbed by London's High Court's ruling in favor of Keira Knightley's libel action against the Daily Mail. It seems that the paper ran a picture of the startlingly thin actress in a bikini and suggested that she was partly responsible for the death of a teenange girl, who had died from starvation. The Court apparently agreed with Knightley that the article implied the actress was lying when she denied having an eating disorder.

It is hard to disagree with the actress that she was deeply offended and hurt. The story of the girl's death was placed alongside the picture, and captioned with a quote, allegedly from the girl's mother: "If Pictures Like This One of Keira Knightley Carried a Health Warning, My Darling Daughter Might Have Lived."


But what disturbs me is the interposition of libel law. Granted, the paper did imply that the picture might have inspired the girl to starve, but what actual facts are in dispute? That Knightley was lying about having anorexia? That was the paper's opinion. Why should it be libelous to believe that someone is lying? Aside from the fact that the "quote" from the girl's mother is highly suspect, I don't see how a Court can punish a paper for its speculations, no matter how cruel.


I can see a libel action if the paper had printed a plain lie, such as, for instance, that there was a doctor who had actually diagnosed Knightley as anorexic, and had told her. But this wasn't the basis of her lawsuit. She wanted the paper legally punished for merely speculating about her honesty, and that this might have contributed to a girl's death. The speculation was baseless, cruel and stupid, but it did not misstate any known fact. That shouldn't be against the law.