19 Nov 10 | News and features, United Kingdom
Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL (UK), Mumsnet and the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) have written an open letter to the Prime Minister David Cameron calling for urgent reform of our libel laws. Currently, forum providers and ISPs are being forced to act as judge and jury over the content of websites, blogs and online discussions. The effect is that libel threats are causing online content to be censored, even when the material is not actually defamatory. The internet companies are angered that the multiple publication rule which they are bound by, predates not only the invention of the internet, but that of the light bulb
(more…)
15 Nov 10 | Uncategorized
The old journalists’ saying, “You can’t libel the dead” may have to be qualified with “except if you live in Scotland” if a consultation launched by the SNP government becomes law. Scottish Ministers are asking whether defamation should be reformed to allow friends and family of the dead to sue on their behalf. The move is in response to a longstanding campaign by Margaret and James Watson, whose 16-year-old son, Alan, committed suicide after reading a newspaper article that alleged his sister, who was stabbed to death in a playground row, had been a bully.
However, despite the disturbing facts of this case, rather than protect the reputation of murder victims, the expenses associated with libel ensure that it is the wealthy who would benefit from such a change to protect their good name in lifetime and beyond. Since any reform would only apply north of the border, perhaps England would have a real competitor for the title of “libel capital of the world” if it led to the likes of Michael Jackson’s estate suing in Scotland because of disparaging articles about him being downloaded in Shetland.
However, a more realistic concern is that if the dead could sue, historians and academics would be seriously undermined and less likely to publish critical works on — or even research — historical figures. The potential cost of defending your claim makes it a gamble not worth taking. Thus the proposal increases the likelihood of an incomplete historical record. History may be written by the victor, but such a change would ensure that it is only the rich and powerful who are victorious.
A government spokesman refused to commit on the merits of the suggestion, saying that “these are important and sensitive issues, involving a careful balancing of fundamental rights, and we are determined to take every care to ensure that they are addressed appropriately” but adding that a change in the law remained “a very, very long way away”.
Scientists, comedians, broadcasters and journalists have been at the forefront of the Libel Reform Campaign because of the ability of such laws to inhibit them from carrying out their work. If this proposal gets off the ground expect historians to add to this growing list of professions disgruntled by our over bearing libel laws. Please form an orderly queue.
11 Nov 10 | Uncategorized
A long time ago, when I worked for a glossy magazine, I was asked to try a Rodial product in order to tackle my “problem area”. Tummy Tuck –– 100 quid for 125 ml –– claims it is “clinically proven to reduce the abdominal area by up to 2 centimetres in 8 weeks.” I thought it was total bollocks but I doubt I even hinted at that in print.
One thing you work out early on in magazines is that you don’t criticise advertisers. That’s why the big brands feature so prominantly in most fashion magazines. Advertising in magazines ensures a quid pro quo of favourable coverage.
So I was interested to hear about Rodial’s latest exploits:
One of Britain’s leading consultant plastic surgeons has been threatened with libel action by the manufacturer of a £125 ‘Boob Job’ cream for speaking out about her doubts of its effectiveness. Dr Dalia Nield of The London Clinic was quoted in an article in the Daily Mail on 1st October 2010 saying that it was ‘highly unlikely’ the ‘Boob Job’ cream would increase a woman’s breast size. The manufacturer, Rodial Limited had claimed that the cream, reported to be a favourite of Scarlett Johansson, can increase breast size by 2.5cm. Dr Nield said the company had not provided a full analysis of tests on the cream and that if its claims that fat cells moved around the body were true it could be potentially dangerous. Rodial Limited has threatened Dr Nield with libel action. Dr Nield stands by her comments.
The libel campaign brings together stange bedfellows: Claire Coleman a freelance journalist who occaisionally covers a beauty beat for Grazia, Sunday Times Style and the Daily Mail tweeted an appeal for fellow beauty journalists to sign the Libel Reform petition pointing out the case is going the make it harder to get expert comment for features.
Blogging about the case she said “This isn’t just about one doctor, one cream, and one litigious company, it’s about big brands trying to control what you hear about them, and it’s worryingly Orwellian.”
Former Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris commented: “This sort of libel threat is an unacceptable form of bullying of clinicians and researchers on a matter where the public interest demands the maximum possible scientific and media debate, and it is why radical libel reform is both vital and urgent. The cases we hear about — where doctors and scientists, and the newspaper or journal, stand up to the threat of costly and uncertain court action – are only the tip of the iceberg because most will simply be forced to retreat in the face of a libel suit.”
In the beauty industry, where its already hard to get the truth, this case is going to make it even harder.
04 Nov 10 | News and features
