Matt Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Free speech is not for sale! After a year-long Inquiry, English PEN and Index on Censorship have concluded that English libel law has a negative impact on freedom of expression, both in the UK and around the world. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and should only be limited in special circumstances. Yet English libel law imposes unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on free speech, sending a chilling effect through the publishing and journalism sectors in the UK. This effect now reaches around the world, because of so-called 'libel tourism', where foreign cases are heard in London, widely known as a 'town named sue'. The law was designed to serve the rich and powerful, and does not reflect the interests of a modern democratic society. In this report, we cut through the intimidating complexity of English libel law to show how the legal framework has become increasingly unbalanced. We believe that the law needs to facilitate the free exchange of ideas and information, whilst offering redress to anyone whose reputation is falsely or unfairly damaged. Yet our inquiry has shown that the law as it stands is hindering the free exchange of ideas and information. We repeatedly encountered the same concerns, expressed by lawyers, publishers, journalists, bloggers and NGOs, who have no wish to abolish libel law, but know from experience of its chilling effect on legitimate publication. In response to their concerns, which are set out below, we offer the following recommendations to restore the balance between free speech and reputation: 1. In libel, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. We recommend: Require the claimant to demonstrate damage and falsity. 2. English libel law is more about making money than saving a reputation. We recommend: Cap damages at £10,000. 3. The definition of 'publication' defies common sense. We recommend: Abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule and introduce a single publication rule. 4. London has become an international libel tribunal. We recommend: No case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of copies of the relevant publication have been circulated here. 5. There are few viable alternatives to a full trial. We recommend: Establish a libel tribunal as a low-cost forum for hearings. 6. There is no robust public interest defence in libel law. We recommend: Strengthen the public interest defence. 7. Comment is not free. We recommend: Expand the definition of fair comment. 8. The potential cost of defending a libel action is prohibitive. We recommend: Cap base costs and make success fees and 'After the Event' (ATE) insurance premiums non-recoverable. 9. The law does not reflect the arrival of the internet. We recommend: Exempt interactive online services and interactive chat from liability. 10. Not everything deserves a reputation. We recommend: Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they can prove malicious falsehood. http://libelreform.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Free speech is not for sale! http://libelreform.org/ It is an odd law, especially when you consider you can be done for libel in the UK for saying something that is, in fact, true, if it's shown that you didn't actually know it to be true! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldhamSheridan Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Large parts of this seem more than a bit daft (points 1 & 2 are hardly a good start). Is this the newspapers trying to do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 How could you prove falsity? "You're a paedophile!" "No I'm not!" "Prove I'm wrong!" "Er...okay, I'll have sex with an adult?" The person making the claim should be the one proving it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 There's too much in there that hasn't been thought through for me to sign. If you are going to have compensation for defamation, why cap it at £10k? Someone's business and personal life could be ruined forever by untrue publications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 No need to change the law... The law should protect against people claiming false things without evidence... What interests me is how the law is changing which stops people like MPs and Vicars expressing certain opinions... I find that worrying and taking it too far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 No need to change the law... The law should protect against people claiming false things without evidence... What interests me is how the law is changing which stops people like MPs and Vicars expressing certain opinions... I find that worrying and taking it too far... MPs can still say absolutely anything they like in the House (subject to rules of conduct, like calling each other, “wankers,” although that one is allowed in New Zealand). The recent thing in that area has been the attempt by the fiddling 3 MPs who are being charged to claim the same immunity for their robbing, which they don’t have at all. It’s quite common in a lot of countries for MPs to have complete legal immunity unless the parliament agrees to let them be charged, which is perhaps needed in countries where the government is able to use the legal system to suppress open debate. Interesting a few months after the dibble were kicking a door down in the Commons to try and find out who a civil service whistle-blower was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 12, 2010 Author Share Posted February 12, 2010 To be fair there's a lot of it geared towards the freedom of Doctors/authors publications in science and public health rather than general libel laws - I didn't make that clear, however for me it's important that people like Simon Singh and Dr.Ben Goldacre continue their fight against psuedo-science, and carry on their respective causes for scepticism and science in the UK. This campaign takes over from the work these people have been doing to keep libel laws out of science, and I've been told by Simon Singh that the English libel laws regarding these issues have been condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee. I have not sought out any proof of this, but I will and I expect it to confirm what I've been told. These laws gag scientists, bloggers and journalists who want to discuss matters of genuine public interest (and public health!) ..and I don't want homoeopaths, dodgy vitamins dealers, The British Chiropractic Association and snake oil manufacturers (to name but a few), to take refuge behind it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 (edited) MPs can still say absolutely anything they like in the House I know... There is increasing restrictions coming in on vicars / MPs / would be MPs and such like expressing their views on homosexuality, abortion, adoption, race and things like this... All hot potato subjects but I think its wrong to stop someone preaching there views. Tackle them mind and win the argument, but creating laws against these view points is over the top. I do believe in Freedom of speech... If only to let that freedom show them up for what they are. Edited February 12, 2010 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardlelatic Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Interesting article this . I'm currently taking legal advise for defamation and libel !!!!!!! Seems I lost out on a potential opportunity due to me being a "hatchet man" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Interesting article this . I'm currently taking legal advise for defamation and libel !!!!!!! Seems I lost out on a potential opportunity due to me being a "hatchet man" Anything I can do to help? Like saying anything you have deleted from me again? Just in case it was something I posted or someone else who said the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Someone that is very close to me has been libelled in a newspaper with a decent circulation and the Houses of Parliament. The Houses of Parliament thing about MPs saying what they like I actually believe in as it allows MPs to make public cases of inpropiety now matter how small/trivial. I do think if wrong that MP should apologise but that's about as far as it should go. Libel is not a cause for celebrities its a cause for all, and given the amount of times doctors end up in the papers for supposed (or even proven) mistakes/wrong-doing I'm quite happy to keep the libel laws the same. This is just the papers and the press protecting their own interests, for example why should libel be capped? Yes a lot of the people don't need the money but if a paper/photgrapher can make over £10k from a bit of why should the person(s) being libelled not make just as much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 (edited) . Edited February 13, 2010 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 (edited) . Edited February 13, 2010 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.