Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Victory for free speech as libel bill passes

By Padraig Reidy / 24 April, 2013

Changes will be made to England’s defamation law after a three-and-a-half-year campaign, writes Padraig Reidy

Today, 24 April, saw history made. The UK parliament has passed a new Defamation Bill, which will now go on to Royal Assent. A major victory against censorship in Britain and beyond has been won, with England’s notorious libel laws changed in favour of free speech.

The creation of this new law has not been an easy process. The Libel Reform Campaign launched on 9 December 2009, bringing together Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. We had all identified a simple problem: English libel laws were silencing legitimate criticism and debate — not just in the UK but internationally. London’s High Court was seen as the place to come to silence opponents and critics, whether you were a South African snake-oil salesman or a Saudi sheikh.

Each organisation had already been alarmed by the use of libel laws in England and Wales to silence free speech.

The movement galvanised around the case of Simon Singh vs the British Chiropractic Association. This case, involving the popular science writer’s critique of what he now famously described as the “bogus” claims of alternative medicine, brought the UK’s energetic sceptic community into the fold. Over 100 civil society groups signed up. Novelists, journalists, lawyers and comics — especially comics — also joined. At the same time, English PEN and Index on Censorship had been working on a year-long study on the effects of English libel law on chilling free speech at home and across the globe. The Free Speech For Sale report kicked off a national debate on the impact of these archaic laws.

In March 2010, some of the biggest names in comedy, including Shappi Khorsandi, Tim Minchin and Dara Ó Briain gave their time to perform at the Big Libel Gig fundraiser in London.

An awful lot has happened since that benefit gig. Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz, a serial libel tourist, has died. Mr Justice Eady, the High Court judge at the centre of some of the most contentious libel cases of recent times, has retired. Barack Obama signed the SPEECH Act, a US law specifically designed to protect Americans from London libel rulings. And the Chiropractics lost their case against Singh.

But what did not change was the remarkable loyal support of the thousands of libel reform supporters at home and abroad.

In advance of the 2010 UK election, tens of thousands of people wrote to their MPs telling them to support reform of the libel laws. As a result, all three main parties in the UK pledged to change the law.

When the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed by David Cameron and Nick Clegg after that election, a new defamation bill was one of the few issues both parties agreed on.

It would have been easy then for the 60,000 libel reform supporters to feel that their job had been done, and that now it could be left to the politicians.

But this never happened. Every time there was even a slightest threat to the process of reform, supporters mobilised, often without prompting.

The Libel Reform campaign can be seen, perhaps, as the first successful political campaign of the social media age. Bloggers and tweeters got involved and stayed involved. The #LibelReform hashtag was never dormant.

It was also a good example of parliamentary policy making. Though at times progress seemed slow, the bill went through rounds of scrutiny in an open and transparent manner, with politicians (for the most part!) working together for the common good.

The new law protects free speech. There is a hurdle to stop vexatious cases. We now have a bar on libel tourism so non-EU claimants will now need to prove that harm has been done here. For the first time there will be a statutory public interest defence that will ask defendants to prove they have acted “reasonably” (a better test than the more burdensome Reynold’s test of responsible publication). There is also a hurdle to stop corporations from suing unless they can prove financial harm.

The fight for free speech continues, but today Index would like to thank our partners and supporters for what has been an incredible three-and-a-half-year adventure.

Padraig Reidy is Senior Writer at Index on Censorship. @mePadraigReidy

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Challenge censorship. Stand up for free expression. Support Index.

About Padraig Reidy

Padraig Reidy Padraig Reidy is a columnist for Index on Censorship. He has also written for The Observer, The Guardian, and The Irish Times.

Follow on Twitter View all Posts

5 Responses to Victory for free speech as libel bill passes

  1. Loverat Reply

    27 May at 06:12

    Oh dear. It seems I may have been a little premature in praising some British judges and dare I say, assumed that the progress on libel reform would continue to influence decision making in court. We have now gone back in the opposite direction.

    What on earth happened in the Bercow case?. O.K one might say that the at a stretch the decision on meaning might seem technically correct and logical in legal terms. But what happened to common sense and what caused such a distorted, disproportinate and wrong outcome?

    Following legal precedents on what compensation is claimable and what is not, there was no way on this earth that McAlpine could have walked away trousering another hefty settlement. So why on earth did he when he has been compensated already? Did the judge not think that this and her offer of amends was sufficient? Especially when this guidance was endorsed by him in a previous case. Or was there no provision whatsover to factor this consideration into the thought process and deciding the overall outcome? Any damages hearing should have been set to decide whether compensation should be payable at all – not how much.

    Must admit – rather astounded and cannot understand why free speech groups have been silent on this.

  2. Pingback: Defamation Act 2013, commencement and some initial reactions | Inforrm's Blog

  3. Pingback: Promesse (O’s digest) – Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it

  4. George Greenwood Reply

    25 April at 10:03

    A wonderful outcome but when is the Royal Assent?

    Congratulations to all who persisted for three an a half years. This is a resounding victory for common sense and freedom to criticise dubious statements without fear of being sued.

    It also demonstrates the “point and edge” dictum of using very focussed aims to solve an issue instead of trying to solve many diverse problems on which agreement is less easy to gain.

    It is often the only way to get politicians to back and drive forward measures without having to compromise widely.

    George Greenwood

  5. Loverat Reply

    24 April at 17:52

    Congratulations to Libel Reform on a great result. I have followed the rise of Libel Reform and have been impressed at the progress made despite the many obstacles.

    I would just like to pick up on one small point in the article although it may be very important to some 70 potential and actual defendants in a libel case which went unreported by Libel Reform. (Smith V ADVFN) The defendants won that case hands down with no legal representation.

    Anyway the judgement in that case has huge implications for many other cases and contains virtually all the reasons why 80% of libel claims have failed these last few years. The case covers many aspects of libel law and defences.

    Anyway, that case was presided over by Mr Justice Eady and the judgement is excellent and considering the non representation of defendants,he did as much as possible to make the process and experience easier for them. Other libel defendants also have reason to be grateful for his insight into their cases.

    He made some mistakes along the way (Simon Singh) and we have remember he had to work with an unsatisfactory law which was never popular. However those who criticise this judge fail to appreciate the good decisions he reached.

    Therefore – hats off to Mr Justice Eady who in the period we were waiting for the law to change, assisted many libel defendants with common sense and more reasonable interpretations of a dated law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


More in Featured, United Kingdom
‘Giving women a voice may be our most significant achievement’
Close