01 Jun 10 | Uncategorized
It is a matter of no little pride for the libel reform campaign that the first bill to be published under the new coalition government is aimed at reforming the UK’s hideous defamation laws. An issue that was regarded with hostility or disdain at Westminster has forced its way up the political agenda.
Lord Lester’s private member’s bill represents the first concerted attempt to codify the balance between free expression and the right to reputation. It seeks to introduce a statutory defence of responsible publication on a matter of public interest; clarify the defences of justification and fair comment; require claimants to show substantial harm, and corporate bodies to show financial loss; encourage quick and cost-effective settlement of disputes through arbitration without recourse to costly litigation. And, in a nod to the 21st century, it addresses the problems of the internet age, including multiple publications and the responsibility of internet service providers and hosts.
Lester’s defamation bill constitutes a quiet revolution. It sets out, as he puts it:
To reduce the chilling effect on freedom of expression and recourse to self-censorship that results from the vagueness and uncertainty of the present law. It also aims to encourage the free exchange of ideas and information, whilst providing an effective and proportionate remedy to anyone whose reputation is unfairly damaged.
Some free expression campaigners may argue that the bill does not go far enough. It does not, for example, address the burden of proof. But ours is not to cavil: it marks a major step forward, and should be supported as it moves through its legislative stages. The bigger danger is that it is destroyed or watered down beyond recognition, as the government caves in under pressure from those in the legal profession who have made tidy profits from an archaic and unbalanced body of law.
The claimant cabal has already begun to fight back. Addressing a meeting in the Inner Temple a few days before publishing his bill, Lester sought to fend off characteristically smug scoffing from several barristers. They seemed convinced that his bill was an attempt by reformers to ingratiate themselves with newspapers. They deliberately misrepresent the campaign for libel reform as representing media organisations. We do not. We aim to repair a body of law that has seen scientists, doctors, NGOs, bloggers and others forced into apologising for and retracting comments, articles and books, even though they have done nothing wrong. We aim to make it harder for oligarchs and sheikhs to use English courts to stifle free speech around the world.
Opponents of libel reform know they are operating in a changed environment. Since Index on Censorship launched the libel reform campaign last November, in conjunction with English Pen and Sense About Science, we have amassed a groundswell of popular support. More than 50,000 people have signed our petition and public figures have spoken out.
Only recently, however, have politicians begun to appreciate the clamour. The working group, established by Jack Straw when he was justice secretary, was an important first step. Somewhat hurriedly he tried to push through in the dying days of the last parliament new rules that would have slashed success fees for libel lawyers from 100% to 10%. The issue of costs must be tackled again.
Gratifyingly, all three main parties went into the election with manifesto commitments to reform the law. The Liberal Democrats have been the most consistent advocates, and with Nick Clegg firmly ensconced as deputy prime minister and leading on the government’s plans for constitutional reform and civil liberties, the issue is in good hands. The Ministry of Justice is keen on supporting him, but early signals from Ken Clarke, its secretary of state, do not appear to be encouraging. Hopes may fall on his Lib Dem number two, Lord McNally.
All but the most recalcitrant accept that the law needs modernising. It relies on bizarre precedent, such as the Duke of Brunswick sending his manservant to Paris to gather a copy of the Weekly Dispatch which had offended him. But there is a bigger problem. Many lawyers appear perturbed by the idea of free speech. They are comfortable in a situation in which they, and not an elected parliament, rule what information the public has a right to know. They, and they alone, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
John Kampfner is the chief executive of Index on Censorship
27 May 10 | News and features
John Kampfner v Korieh Duodu. The Lib-Con coalition has promised a review of our costly, complicated libel laws. But do they really need reforming in the interests of free speech?
This piece was originally published on the Guardian’s liberty central
(more…)
27 May 10 | News and features, United Kingdom
Response from the Libel Reform Campaign to Lord Lester of Herne Hill’s Private Members Defamation Bill
READ LORD LESTER’S DEFAMATION BILL HERE
Read the Libel Reform Campaign’s report Free Speech Is Not For Sale here
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill is the first attempt in over a century to redraft libel laws that are unfair, internationally criticised and against the public interest. Our libel laws are unnecessarily complicated and unduly costly, defences are uncertain and narrow and the laws haven’t kept up with the information age. They are damaging freedom of expression and the open exchange of information worldwide.
The libel laws have been exposed as unjust
English PEN and Index on Censorship’s Free Speech is not For Sale report made 10 recommendations for fairer laws; the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee report on Press Standards Privacy and Libel called for far reaching reforms; a Ministry of Justice report said the law needs reforming in the public interest.
There is a public outcry about the chill on free speech
Over 500 commentators, comedians, poets and authors have spoken out and over 52,000 people have signed the libel reform campaign petition. Fifty organisations including Royal Medical Colleges, human rights NGOs, medical and science bodies, authors, bloggers, publishers and media and law organisations have called for reform. Hundreds of people have reported threats of libel action leading them to remove articles, blogs, reviews, academic papers, reports and books. Vital issues of public interest are affected including drug safety, human rights abuses and corporate behaviour.
There is widespread Parliamentary support for reform. The majority of eligible MPs signed up to an EDM supporting libel law reform.6
There were general election manifesto commitments to reform the libel laws from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour…
There is a coalition Government promise to reform the libel laws.
Now it’s time to change the law!
In light of Lord Lester’s Bill, the Libel Reform Campaign is asking: will the Government now make clear its plans for reform? Will it support, adopt or develop this Bill?
Jonathan Heawood Director, English PEN said: “The current libel laws give international bullies licence to silence criticism. Until we have a clear public interest defence human rights activists, NGOs, authors, publishers, scientists and bloggers will continue to be threatened and sued.”
John Kampfner Chief Executive, Index on Censorship said: “There have been piecemeal reforms to our libel laws before but the big problems have not been resolved. The Duke of Brunswick ruling predates the lightbulb, but is still in use today to silence online debate. That is why we welcome this attempt to modernise the libel laws for the internet age.”
Tracey Brown Managing Director, Sense About Science said: With every week that passes, we are contacted by yet more writers and researchers who have been threatened with libel action. In the face of high costs and weak defences, they withdraw their articles, hold back their material from public discussion and, in the end, stop asking vital questions of public interest. Lord Lester’s Bill should be considered urgently by the Government.
Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat former MP who chaired the cross-party group for manifesto commitments for libel reform said: “Libel law reform is needed to prevent the chilling of comment which is in the public interest. It is therefore essential for scientists and academics and giving their opinion in good faith and responsibly, and their publishers, to know at the time of publication that they will have an effective defence against an unjustified libel plaintiff. Lord Lester’s skilfully crafted bill is one way of doing that and also offers the Government a vehicle for legislation following their review.”
25 May 10 | Uncategorized
In today’s Queen’s Speech, the monarch mentioned that “Legislation will be brought forward to restore freedoms and civil liberties through the abolition of identity cards and repeal of unnecessary laws.”
This legislation will largely consist of the Freedom (Great Repeal) Bill, which, among other things, promises as a main element of its remit “the reform of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.”
This would seem to be an advance on the text of the coalition agreement, which promised only a “review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.”
It remains to be seen whether this reform will be based on Lord Lester‘s private member’s bill. But the coalition has, in writing, committed to reform.
Now it’s important we hold them to it.
