The Libel Reform Campaign

Reforming Libel

What must a Defamation Bill achieve?

www.libelreform.org

Reforming Libel

What must a Defamation Bill achieve?

English libel law is notoriously expensive, complicated and out of date. It is stifling public debate and freedom of expression and is among the most restrictive defamation laws in the world. The poor protection for free speech under the current law chills discussion of historical biographies, medical research, human rights abuse and fraud. Rich organisations can exploit the lack of protection for free speech in a battle against a lone writer, journal or NGO and use our libel laws to force retractions of material they simply dont like. So citizens pay a high price for a law that protects the wealthy and powerful from criticism, but does little for people whose reputations are genuinely damaged. The UN Human Rights Committee, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the US Congress and a specially convened Ministry of Justice Working Group under the last Government have all found that English libel law damages free expression and scientific enquiry. Over 50,000 people have signed the petition for libel reform, supported by the majority of eligible MPs in the last Parliament. The three main political parties backed our campaigns call for reform in their general election manifestos. On 9 July, following publication of a Defamation Bill by Lord Lester the coalition government promised to change the law to protect freedom of speech. There will be a draft Bill by January 2011. While writers, publishers, NGOs, human rights lawyers, clinicians, academics and performers have emphasised different problems with the laws chilling effects, all are agreed that: A. Rebalancing our libel laws to protect free expression will require fundamental changes to the law. The piecemeal reforms of the past century have only made the legislation more complex, inaccessible and expensive, while failing to address the fundamental lack of protection for free speech. B. Our libel laws are a matter for Parliament as well as the courts. Libel laws are of constitutional importance. In libel, the common law has not developed a reliable protection for free speech nor kept pace with modern The Libel Reform Campaign

publishing and the internet age. Statutory legislation is an opportunity for Parliament to set out a framework of principles to protect free speech, which are clear and accessible to all parties and within which the courts can apply the law on a case-by-case basis. C. Reforms to the law to protect free speech must include: 1. A public interest defence. There is a profound public interest in freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. Freedom of expression is vital for ensuring political accountability, for advancing understanding and for achieving personal fulfilment. This is not because everything that people say is true, but because an open society tends towards noisy imperfection more than silence and the public interest is sometimes best served by the publication of uncertain information. A clear statutory public interest defence in cases where the author has acted responsibly, according to the type of publication, would curb the chilling effect of libel laws and lead to cases being resolved quickly. 2. Restrictions on corporate and public bodies. In the spirit of a law that protects citizens and the rights of citizen critics, corporate bodies and associations should be able to sue only if they have grounds to believe that the publisher or writer has been reckless or malicious. As with current case law, government bodies should also not be able to sue for libel. 3. Bringing the law up to date. The definition of publication in English libel law doesnt reflect the age of global communication and the internet. Each newspaper sold or website hit is a fresh libel. This multiple publication rule dates back to 1849 and should be replaced with a single publication rule. The innocent dissemination of material and comment by internet service providers, forum hosts and similar entities should be exempted from libel. 4. Simplifying and strengthening existing defences. Free speech is protected by complex defences that few defendants and claimants understand. Reports and judgements have criticised the absence of a clear distinction between fact and opinion, describing the fair comment defence as overly technical and of limited value. The new Bill should simplify the defence and update the defences of statutory and qualified privilege, in line with proposals in Lord Lesters Bill, so that writers and publishers know in what circumstances they are protected. These changes, along with requiring claimants to prove they have a substantial reputation in the UK, should end libel tourism, where the rich and powerful use English law to silence criticism in their own countries, and also serve to reduce costs.

www.libelreform.org

Please sign up to libel reform: free science from corrupt, stupid censorship
Stephen Fry

For journalists, performers, scientists and writers, the libel laws in England are becoming a dangerous joke
Dara Briain

About the Libel Reform Coalition

In December 2009 Index on Censorship (registered charity no. 325003), English PEN (registered charity no. 1125610) and Sense About Science (registered charity no. 1101114), joined together to form the Libel Reform Coalition. Together they are campaigning for major reforms to Englands libel laws.

Support the campaign

Design: Hamish Symington (www.hamishsymington.com)

Add your voice for libel law reform at www.libelreform.org You can support the libel reform campaign by donating online at www.justgiving.com/libelreform or by sending donations to Libel Reform Coalition, c/o Sense About Science, 25 Shaftesbury Avenue, London W1D 7EG.

More information
For more information contact Mike Harris at mike@libelreform.org or Sle Lane at slane@senseaboutscience.org
The Libel Reform Campaign acknowledges the help of hundreds of volunteers and supporters and the generous support of the Open Society Institute, the Kenneth Miller Trust, the Hargrave Foundation, the Esme Fairbairn Foundation, Nature Publishing Group, the Physiological Society and the Society for Endocrinology.

www.libelreform.org