Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
Prev
Next
Index launches Alternative Libel Project
England’s libel laws have turned the country into “liberty’s enemy”, Observer columnist and author of You Can’t Read This Book Nick Cohen said at last night’s launch of Index and English PEN’s final report of the Alternative Libel Project.
“We virtually invented freedom of expression, but any scoundrel can go to the High Court,” Cohen said.
He was among a host of libel reform campaigners speaking at yesterday’s event at London’s Inner Temple, reflecting on the strides made in the campaign and reaffirming the need for change in England’s defamation law.
The Alternative Libel Project, the result of a year-long inquiry looking into alternatives to resolving libel claims through the High Court, has recommended the use of quicker and cheaper methods to tackle the chilling costs of bringing a claim forward. The report advocates capping the cost of a libel claim at the average UK house price and allowing judges to protect ordinary people from having to pay the other side’s costs if they lose.
Cohen gave an impassioned defence of press freedom, noting that the proliferation of online publishing meant libel reform was no longer only an issue facing reporters. “Everyone is a journalist,” he said.
He praised the campaign’s efforts but urged supporters to look at the “cold climate into which this legislation is emerging”, comparing asking to do the press a favour to asking for a pay rise for MPs after the expenses scandal.
Science writer Simon Singh argued that issues of libel reform were not “old problems”, revealing that, in addition to battling a libel claim brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association, in 2010 he also received another threat over remarks he had made about climate change. The fear of libel, Singh said, was “widespread”.
Opening the event, Justice Minister Lord McNally echoed his statement made at yesterday’s Westminster Legal Policy Forum, saying that he would be “extremely disappointed” if a commitment to legislate of defamation was not part of the Queen’s Speech in May.
“This is not the end, not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning,” he said.
Libel media roundup
Couple of articles still basking in the BCA’s climbdown in its defamation case against Simon Singh.
In the Guardian, Simon Singh stresses that though his case is over, the battle for reform continues:
…any reform needs to be radical, not merely tinkering. There are several issues that need to be addressed, such as the current lack of a public interest defence, the unfair burden of proof on defendants, libel tourism and so on. And each problem needs to be tackled properly.
Simon was also profiled in the Sunday Times.
Meanwhile Nick Cohen in the Observer celebrates the geeks who backed Simon’s campaign against the Chiropractics:
There is an overlap with the more assertive atheism which followed 9/11. Like atheists, skeptics treat as patronising and contemptible the cynical modern belief that you should not examine religion or alternative medicines because the simple-minded and uninformed find comfort in them. But you do not have to be an atheist to be a skeptic, merely commit to the free examination of evidence. This modest ambition is surprisingly potent.
Politicians who supported libel reform had a smart and committed network behind them. I suspect that politicians who still want to defend our irrational drugs laws or alternative treatments on the NHS will find that they will face unrelenting scrutiny from equally smart and committed opponents. My hope after Singh’s victory is that none but the foolhardy will want a repeat of the drubbing the chiropractors received.
Simon Singh victory doesn't mean libel laws work
This article first appeared on liberty central
Simon Singh’s bogus journey has finally come to an end. Almost two years to the day since Singh first wrote an article in the Guardian questioning the claims made for spinal manipulation by the British Chiropractic Association, the organisation has dropped its libel case.
There is no way the BCA could have anticipated what would follow from bringing their claim against Singh. In the last year, Singh’s case has become a rallying point for free expression organisations such as Index on Censorship (who formed the libel reform coalition last December with Sense About Science and English PEN), scientists, bloggers, comics, and what Ian Sample described in the Guardian this week as a “rising army of sceptics“.
One in four British chiropractors is now under investigation by the General Chiropractic Council following a campaign by Singh’s sceptical supporters. Singh was brave in standing up to the BCA. But he was exemplary in insisting from day one that the case was not just about him. The absurdity of this case highlighted to many the injustices of English libel law, from the grossly inflated costs, to the utter inadequacy of our concepts of fair comment and public interest. In the court of appeal ruling handed down on 1 April, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge emphasised that Singh had written an honest opinion, based on reasons, and suggested that this should be the future template for “fair comment” defences.
This is a day to celebrate for anyone interested in free expression in England and beyond. In fact, it has been an amazing week for libel reform campaigners: as the main political parties rolled out their manifestos, all three made commitments to libel reform. Meanwhile, the petition for reform passed 50,000 signatures.
What we should not imagine for one moment is that the BCA climbdown suggests that our libel laws work. The case has taken up masses of time and energy for all concerned. Meanwhile, NMT’s case against Peter Wilmshurt, another clear demonstration of the law meddling with medical science, rumbles on. And the solicitors’ letters keep turning up in the mailboxes of writers, bloggers and activists without the nerve or resources of Simon Singh.
Free expression in the UK remains threatened. Next week, the Libel Reform Coalition hosts a hustings at the Free Word Centre in London, where all three parties will be grilled on their commitment to free speech. Manifesto pledges are one thing; but we must continue to push for a genuine rethinking of UK citizens’ ability under the law to debate, argue and learn.