News release: House of Lords debate is last chance to protect citizens’ freedom to criticise big business

• Defamation Bill does not contain any specific measures to prevent companies from using libel law to bully critics

• Government to allow taxpayers’ money to be used for libel claims

• Multi-nationals like ATOS free to bully those who criticise state-funded services

• Companies free to sue their critics without having to show any financial harm

• Church of scientology able to silence critics by libel threats

• Case that sparked the campaign (BCA vs Singh) could happen again

The House of Lords has one last chance to protect citizens’ right to criticise corporations. In a debate next Tuesday, amendments to the Defamation Bill that would limit companies’ and other corporate bodies’ use of the libel laws will be debated.  The amendments will include a clause that requires companies to demonstrate financial harm before they can sue. Also to be debated is a proposal that corporations which receive taxpayers’ money to deliver public services cannot sue for libel.

Similar amendments were rejected by the government in a House of Commons vote on Tuesday April 16. As it stands, the Defamation Bill would give private companies that deliver public services an advantage over government bodies, which are barred by the common law Derbyshire principle from suing for libel if they are criticised by members of the public. The Libel Reform Campaign believes that corporations which receive taxpayers’ money should receive the same treatment as public bodies.

Case study: ATOS forces disability support forum to close

ATOS Healthcare used libel law to silence its critics on CarerWatch, a closed forum where carers go to share experiences. Users’ posts had criticised how ATOS was running a state-funded contract to assess disability claimants fitness for work. In August 2011, ATOS’s lawyers sent a legal threat to myfreeforum.org, the host of the carer’s forum. Myfreeforum.org, fearing an expensive libel action, closed the forum. Frances Kelly, the founder of CarerWatch, said at the time: “The sudden disappearance of a support group has caused a lot of distress and fear. Some (members) are ringing us in tears.” After public outcry, CarerWatch is now back online.

The Libel Reform Campaign was founded in 2009 to call for reform of England’s outdated libel laws to protect open debate and the public interest. Since then we have heard from hundreds of scientists, human rights NGOs, journalists, consumer watchdogs and parenting forums about cases and threats of libel action from companies that are chilling debate. We can share some of these stories. Please get in touch.

The House of Lords debate will take place on Tuesday April 23.

Simon Singh, author and libel defendant in BCA v. Singh, said:

“The majority of the cases that galvanized public support for libel reform involved corporations, so the final Defamation Bill must include a clause that limits the powers for corporations to bully their critics into silence. The proposal on the table is reasonable, modest and fair. Ignoring this proposal on corporations would leave the door open to further abuses of libel law by those who want to block the public’s access to information concerning everything from consumer issues to medical treatments.”

Jo Glanville, Director of English PEN said:

‘If this is going to be a Bill that delivers the commitment promised by all three parties, then it must include reform that addresses the bullying libel tactics of companies. There must be a higher hurdle that makes it less easy for companies to silence whistleblowers. Some of the most egregious libel cases have involved companies suing individuals for speaking out in the public interest. It’s now down to the Lords to deliver the reform that’s needed.’

Kirsty Hughes, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, said:

‘Powerful corporations can use libel law to pressurise people who legitimately criticise them.  In the past, we have seen libel law being used to silence doctors, scientists and consumers. We cannot continue to protect the rights of corporations at the expense of freedom of expression.

Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science, said:

“While it is deeply disappointing that the corporations clause has been removed from the Defamation Bill, the efforts of MPs who recognise the need for corporations to show actual financial harm have at least led the Government to concede that this should be revisited in the Lords. It cannot be right that the court is not asked to consider whether companies have faced loss, or are likely to, before a case can go ahead. It cannot be right that citizens can’t criticise delivery of public services whether by private companies or by the Government.”

Notes to editors

The Libel Reform Campaign is a coalition of three charities: English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science. In November 2009, after a year-long inquiry, the ‘Free Speech Is Not For Sale’ report was published by English PEN and Index on Censorship. In June 2009, Sense About Science launched the Keep Libel Laws out of Science campaign publicising libel threats against scientists such as Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst.

In December 2009, the three charities came together to form the Libel Reform Campaign. Over 60,000 supporters and more than 100 organisations have joined the campaign. www.libelreform.org