28 Apr 09 | Uncategorized
Writing in today’s Times, Index on Censorship trustee Sir Ken Macdonald QC makes a compelling argument against privacy laws, which he sees as a tool of the rich, powerful and famous:
‘[I]f privacy protection were ever to chill our press as it has frozen irascible comment in other parts of the world, we would pay a very high price indeed for underscoring the marketability of film stars and footballers. This is because, like libel, privacy protection is expensive. It is not equally available and it does not belong to everyone. It is almost entirely driven by power and wealth. The rich man may be as free as any tramp to sleep on a bench, but he is rather more likely to be found at the Dorchester — and indeed in the law courts. In contrast the poor, living cheek by jowl, have never been able to put a price on their secrets. A law inhibiting comment to which only the famous have real access is a poor mechanism for protecting human dignity.’
Read the rest here
23 Apr 09 | News and features
Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre today told MPs on the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that ‘no-win no-fee’ deals for libel are a ‘lethal weapon’ crushing press freedom. Read more here
16 Apr 09 | News and features
The Supreme Court of Indonesia has overturned a £62 million libel ruling against Time magazine relating to claims that the late President Suharto had amassed a fortune through corruption. Index on Censorship and other media organisations and NGOs made representations in what was seen as a crucial free expression case.
Read more here
09 Apr 09 | Uncategorized
As you may know by now, Index on Censorship and English PEN are running an inquiry into English libel.
Jonathan Heawood of English PEN spoke to the Bookseller about the disastrously lop-sided defamation laws, and particularly the effect they have on book publishers:
‘We’ve been startled by the extent of this problem. Stories and books, which have a strong claim to the public interest, have been suppressed by the threat of libel action. Because of the extortionate costs involved, most publishers would rather settle out of court than face the risk of an unsuccessful trial.
‘Some larger firms are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds defending themselves. For independent publishers, that level of expenditure simply isn’t an option.’
The rest is here
