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

The post Victory for free speech as libel bill passes appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Libel reform is no joke appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Italy: Writer wins free-speech prize for mafia exposé appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Igarashi’s murder, in an environment so distant from the Britain where Rushdie’s book had first appeared three years earlier, made me viscerally aware of what the fatwa of 14 February 1989 had set in train: the edicts of religious and state power, and indeed of criminal undergrounds, had a lethal resonance on writers and translators well beyond any geographic frontiers. The world had emphatically become a “global village”. In one of those ironic synchronies that history is prone to, 1991 was also the year that the world wide web first went live, though it would take another decade for it to acquire its current prominence.

Borders have, of course, long been permeable to writing and ideas. They have also been permeable to fear. In its Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), established in 1559 and only abolished four centuries later in 1966, the Catholic Church proscribed a host of works dangerous to the morals of the faithful — from Johannes Kepler’s astronomical writings in the 17th century, to Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason (1781) and Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man (1791), to Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1953). But the targeting of writers, as well as their writings, by religious and state authorities both outside and inside domestic frontiers has taken on a particular virulence over the past 20 years. The speed of communication the internet permits, its blindness to geography, seems to have stoked the fires of prohibition. The freer and easier it is for ideas to spread, the more punitive the powers that wish to silence or censor become. Then, too, in much of the world, outside the liberal enclaves of secular Europe, God has never died and seems to need increasingly arduous protection from purported blasphemers.

The events surrounding The Satanic Verses were prophetic. After 9/11, the anger of conservative believers, Muslim or Christian, over the way they and their beliefs were represented was even more readily sparked. Skins had grown thin. In 2004, the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was murdered because his film about the subjection of women in Islam, Submission, insulted Muslims; threats to his collaborator, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, then an MP, led to her needing long-term police protection. When the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in 2005, it resulted in protests throughout the Muslim world, some 100 deaths,attacks on Danish embassies and a brutal assault on Kurt Westergaard, the best known of the Danish cartoonists.

Both the teaching of Darwin in schools and performances of the purportedly “blasphemous” Jerry Springer: The Opera have attracted protests by militant Christians both in Britain and the USA. Films of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights came in for similar protest. Meanwhile, Christian librarians in the USA saw fit to keep books as innocuous as The Wizard of Oz off their shelves, for fear of contaminating young minds.

Secular power, as we’ve long known, can be as jealous as religious power and react as adversely to criticism, silencing writers in brutal ways. In 2006, the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, whose bold reports on Chechnya hardly endeared her to Vladimir Putin’s hierarchy, was murdered. In the same year, this time in Italy, the writer Roberto Saviano began receiving the death threats that forced him into a hidden, itinerant life under police protection, following the publication of his bestselling book Gomorrah, which details the workings of the Neapolitan-based Camorra and its mafia-like international reach.

Strange to say, while evidently recognising the importance of literature, ideas and investigative journalism, the censorious seem to be blind to the fact history so flagrantly illuminates: that ideas and writings outlive both their makers and their censors. The works of Kant, Paine and Flaubert are still with us, but we have long forgotten the particular papal committee that sought to ban them. The power of words trumps temporal expedience.

But writers, themselves, are made of flesh and have families. They can be silenced by death, by imprisonment, by the conditions of exile and by fear itself. That fear, in countries such as Britain, where free expression is invoked as a right, can come from a variety of sources. It can be as general as an atmosphere of political correctness — a sense of pressure from an ethnic or religious community or publishers alert to these; or as specific as the possibility of a libel suit. And where free speech is chilled, where access to information, ideas and literature is severely restricted, the very fabric of our lives is impoverished.

When I took on the position first of deputy president of English PEN in 2004 and then of president in 2007, it was clear to me that the permeable, globalised world in which we live meant that campaigning to protect endangered writers abroad, though crucial, was no longer a sufficient undertaking. We had to clean up our own stables as well. How could we deplore the cry of blasphemy by Muslim leaders, the harsh penalties of Islamo-fascist regimes, when an antiquated statute outlawing blasphemy still existed in our own books? Meanwhile, the Turkish regime, which we criticised for its law criminalising any denigration of Turkishness, could point to the continued existence here of seditious libel. We were often reminded that many of the countries of the old commonwealth base their legislation and jurisprudence on British law and cite our example when carrying out repressive measures.

It was evident that our defamation laws needed attention. Blasphemy was top of the agenda for rescinding. Some Muslim groups had been campaigning ever since the Rushdie affair to have it extended to include offence to Islam. Far better, it seemed to us, to establish parity by abolishing the hoary old law altogether.

Achieving change in legislation is ever slow and never easy. Campaigns need partners and growing momentum. They also need a political moment. Ironically, our sense that the blasphemy laws needed repealing coincided with the Labour government’s wish to extend the limits of offence. Trapped in worries about security and confusion about the meaning of respect‚ on 24 November 2004 it introduced a law banning incitement to religious hatred. In large part a response to conservative Muslim pressure, the law was loosely framed. Enacted in its original unamended form, it would have placed impossible limits on expression as well as thought. It would have criminalised any questioning of belief — itself a system of ever-changing ideas — and left any satirist open to protracted court proceedings. It would also have criminalised a good part of what contending religions themselves teach about each other. Had the law existed back in 1989, Rushdie, instead of being protected by the state, would have found himself censored by the courts.

The very promulgation of the law seemed to give minority faiths the licence to protest and shout “offence”, often against writers who shared their own homeland, imaginary or real. A group of Birmingham Sikhs rioted in December 2004 in protest against Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behzti and closed it down, while the government — ever ready to make concessions to minority action in the name of a bureaucratised multiculturalism — applauded their exercise of free speech. A contingent of Bangladeshis in London’s East End, in 2006, protested against the filming of Monica Ali’s Brick Lane, with the result that many of the Brick Lane scenes had to be filmed elsewhere.

But the gathered vocal force of opposition to the legislation, our “Free Expression Is No Offence” campaign, together with the help of experienced parliamentarians such as Evan Harris, then an MP, and Lord Lester, won through. The PEN amendment, eventually introduced into the bill, resulted in making it unworkable. It marked the first robust protection of free expression in our statute books. Offence cannot be protected by law, which nonetheless protects individuals from harm.

Reform of the civil libel laws was next. These laws promulgated at a time when wealth and reputation were thought to walk arm in arm and have accrued in precedents. Libel courts thrive on conditional fee agreements open alike to a Sudanese businessman angered by the memoirs of the young woman whom he and his wife had, in effect, enslaved; to an oligarch seeking to silence a journalist alleging corruption in a Ukrainian newspaper with only a hundred subscribers in Britain; and to the British Chiropractic Association attesting that its reputation had been tarnished by Simon Singh’s queries about its wide-ranging claims.

Thanks to the campaign run jointly by Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science, momentum to reform the laws reached a sufficient pitch for the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to commit to change in their manifestos. Following Lord Lester’s private member’s bill in the Lords in May 2010, the government has promised to publish its proposals for reform in the coming year. We will keep them to it.

Although Britain seems to welcome the world into its libel courts, its new points-based visa system adamantly works to keep writers, artists, academics and students from non-EU countries out. The system, which at borders has the effect of turning everyone into a suspected terrorist or asylum seeker, also endangers our status as a cultural hub and centre for the knowledge industries. Impeding the free circulation of ideas and art in this way is an attack on citizens and their freedom to hear, to learn and to see. Living behind walls of unrestricted bureaucracy makes prisoners of us all.

As I near the end of my term as president of English PEN, I would like to think that we have accomplished something. But keeping the terrain of expression free is a continual challenge and one that hardly affects writers alone. In this permeable and stratified world, where injustice abounds, we neither want to be threatened into restrictive practices nor intimidated into false respect. We all need fresh ideas, open exchange and imagination to keep our plural democracies robust. We also need them to make life worth living.

The 50th anniversary of the English PEN’s Writers in Prison Committee Committee is marked on 16 December with the launch of Beyond Bars, a special issue of Index on Censorship’s magazine Subscribe here

Lisa Appignanesi is the author of Mad, Bad and Sad: Women and the Mind Doctors from 1800 to the Present (Virago) and editor of Free Expression Is No Offence (Penguin). Her new book is All About Love: Anatomy of an Unruly Emotion

The post Human Rights Day: Words without borders appeared first on Index on Censorship.

English PEN and Index on Censorship’s report on libel law, “Free Speech is Not for Sale” recommended a substantial cut in the cost of libel cases, allowing greater access to justice for both claimants and defendants.

Index on Censorship editor Jo Glanville said today: “We are delighted to see Jack Straw acknowledging the chilling effect of libel costs on journalism, publishing and academic research and proposing to address the problem of success fees with secondary legislation. This goes a long way towards meeting our own proposals in the English PEN-Index on Censorship report. We hope the the Secretary of State will consider our remaining proposals on costs and broader reforms with the same spirit and speed.”

Jonathan Heawood of English PEN commented: “The fear of spiralling costs means many individuals and media outlets cannot afford to defend libel actions. Any effort to address this problem is welcome. But we must be clear that costs are only one part of the problem. This measure must be part of a broader package of reform of our defamation laws — a programme we would urge all parties to adopt in their manifestos for the forthcoming election.”

The Libel Reform Campaign was launched in December 2009 by Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. Over 12,500 people have signed a petition calling for urgent reform of English libel law. In response to the campaign. the Minsitry of Justice has announced a working group on libel, and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has called for radical reform of the law.
www.libelreform.org

The post Straw announces plans to reduce libel costs appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur Prof Okechukwu Ibeanu concluded in a report on 3 September 2009 that:

“On the basis of the above considerations and taking into account the immediate impact on public health and the proximity of some of the dumping sites to areas where affected populations reside, the Special Rapporteur considers that there seems to be strong prima facie evidence that the reported deaths and adverse health consequences are related to the dumping of the waste from the Probo Koala.”

Read here

Trafigura has paid out $200 million to the government of the Ivory Coast, and in London settled for £30 million a joint action made by 31,000 Ivorians.

BBut the BBC has now apparently conceded that the toxic waste dumped by the Probo Koala did not cause deaths, serious or long-term injuries and retracted their Newsnight piece in full and removed all reports from their web site.

English PEN and Index on Censorship believe that costs were a major factor behind the BBC’s decision. According to a leading media lawyer, Mark Stephens of FSI, the cost of such a case would have been in excess of £3 million. In its statement the BBC said:

“The BBC withdraws the allegation that deaths, miscarriages or serious or long-term injuries were caused by the waste and apologises to Trafigura for having claimed otherwise.”

John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship said:

“Sadly, the BBC has once again buckled in the face of authority or wealthy corporate interests. It has cut a secret deal. This is a black day for British journalism and once more strengthens our resolve to reform our unjust libel laws.”

Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN, said:

“Forced to choose between a responsible broadcaster and an oil company which shipped hundreds of tons of toxic waste to a developing country, English libel law has once again allowed the wrong side to claim victory. The law is an ass and needs urgent reform.”

The post Libel: BBC concedes to Trafigura appeared first on Index on Censorship.

At various points in the year, the government, the courts and the police connived in the suppression of investigative journalism, scientific research and the reporting of human rights abuses. Libel legislation, the emerging privacy laws and the “super-injunction” were the weapons of choice in the battle to stifle debate and hide the truth.

Initially, MPs saw no need to intervene, defending a system that preserved the privilege of institutions such as the palace of Westminster. Robust journalism — holding truth to power — was deliberately conflated with tabloid intrusion. The scandal of MPs’ expenses reinforced their view that the media were out of control.

Matters suddenly changed in October when the assault on free speech reached the gates of parliament. The attempt by the law firm Carter-Ruck to prevent the Guardian from reporting a question from Paul Farrelly MP about the alleged dumping of toxic waste by the oil trading firm Trafigura was a direct challenge to the supremacy of the legislature.

Carter-Ruck was forced to back down, but the threat has not been seen off. It transpires that questions raised in parliament are, after all, not fully protected legally, making a mockery of an important part of the work of MPs.

Yet 2009 also witnessed the first co-ordinated and popular attempt to fight back. When Index on Censorship and English PEN launched their Libel Report in November, outlining 10 proposals for change, the response at home and abroad was astonishing. Two cases in particular stuck in the public consciousness: that of Simon Singh, a scientist who is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association; and Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist being taken to the English courts by an American company for remarks he made at a conference in the US. The latter has become another of those cases that highlights the absurdities of libel tourism, where the rich and powerful from overseas use the English courts to stifle free speech.

Index and PEN have since joined forces with the charity Sense About Science to launch a broader coalition. Stars such as Dara O’Briain and Alexei Sayle, MPs across all the main parties, lawyers and editors support the campaign.

Jack Straw, the justice secretary, has announced a working group to look at libel reform. Is this a classic attempt to kick the issue into the long grass? Many in the legal establishment are lobbying Straw to ensure it is. As for David Cameron’s Conservatives, the messages are similarly mixed. Yet pressure does work. In 2009, Straw repealed three ancient statutes on criminal defamation, seditious libel and obscene libel. Even by the embarrassing standards of the UK, these laws were hard to defend.

The libel reform campaign is not the only example of progress in adversity. The horror at the police tactics during the G20 protests in April led to a landmark report by the chief inspector of constabulary who condemned heavy-handed tactics, which he said infringe the right to free expression and protest.

In Northern Ireland in June, the Sunday Tribune correspondent Suzanne Breen won a major victory for the reporter’s right to protect sources. Breen came under pressure from police to reveal her sources within the Real IRA, which had contacted her to claim responsibility for killing two British soldiers. She successfully argued that revealing the sources would undermine her as a journalist and put her life in danger of revenge attacks from paramilitaries.

The courts themselves have come under attack from the government, with David Miliband doing his best to suppress information relating to the treatment of the former detainee Binyam Mohamed at the hands of UK and US intelligence services. The courts have six times rejected Foreign Office claims that the disclosure of documents in an open court would damage Britain’s relations with the US, a claim not even the US state department stands by. This week the case comes before the court yet again.

Despite reaching new lows in free expression in 2009, there might be grounds for optimism that, thanks to public pressure, politicians and lawyers are being shamed to concede just a little ground.

This article originally appeared in the Guardian

The post A year of gagging appeared first on Index on Censorship.

“England’s libel laws are unjust, against the public interest and internationally criticised — there is urgent need for reform” this is the message performers, writers, poets, patient groups, legal experts, broadcasters, journalists and others represented by the Coalition for Libel Reform (English PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science) are sending to politicians urging them to support a bill for major reforms of the English libel laws now, in the interests of fairness, the public interest and free speech.

At the launch of the National Campaign for Libel Reform on Thursday, performers and others urged the public to sign a petition demanding reform of the libel laws, highlighting that for the first time in over a century we have an opportunity to change our unfair and repressive libel laws.

For the full text of the petition and to sign up please see www.libelreform.org

Comments:
Stephen Fry, Broadcaster and Author: “A country with Britain’s history of ancient liberties should be celebrating its part in the development of democracy around the world: instead we cringe with embarrassment at archaic, unfair and illiberal laws on libel that make us a global laughing stock. From true free speech flow cultural richness, political liberty and wider prosperities. Instead, our current laws can be manipulated to protect the corrupt and to hide the truth. They are threatening to throttle the life out of our traditions of openness and freedom and to betray all those who fought over the centuries to keep us free.”

Dara O’ Briain, Performer and Author: “The English libel laws were supposed to support the principles of decency and fair play that this country has always aspired to. Nowadays though, those values have been dangerously reversed.

Is it fair play that multinational companies can use the laws to suppress commentary and criticism?

Is it fair play that foreign libel tourists can use the English laws to quash dissent in their own countries?

Is it fair play that there is no defence of “public interest” so that important scientific matters, such as public health or dubious medical practices, cannot be properly debated?

Is it fair play that the cost of a libel case in England is 140 times the cost in mainland Europe?

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

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Journalist and Columnist: “Freedom to write is said to be precious and protected in western democracies. That fundamental principle and the right to disagree with people and institutions is being compromised and threatened by those who use the law not for redress but as a warning to those whose views they resent. Many conscientious journalists and authors are finding their hands and tongues are tied.”

Jonathan Ross, Broadcaster: “The time is now to change these archaic libel laws unless you like the idea of returning to the Dark Ages. Let’s free scientists and journalists to report the truth about science and medicine. You know it makes sense.”

Professor Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Surrey, Author and Broadcaster: “At a time when scientific honesty and transparency are in the headlines, it is vital that we can all freely question, probe and scrutinize claims that affect society.”

Professor Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine and Author: “I think the public must now know that they should be afraid, very afraid,  of the way the libel laws are being used to suppress challenges to dangerous and fraudulent scientific claims.”

Nick Cohen, Journalist: “In its exorbitant costs and institutional bias, the English libel law is the greatest restriction on our right to freedom of expression. Unless we reform it, intelligent debate in this country will wither.”

Roger Highfield, Editor, New Scientist: “England’s libel laws mean that even for people striving to be even handed, for instance in discussing the scientific evidence backing a medical therapy, there’s a chilling atmosphere of fear and uncertainty because of the extraordinary expense of having to defend an action. The biggest losers are the public interest, and most importantly, people’s health.

We must defend the freedom of scientists, researchers and journalists to engage in robust criticism of scientific and pseudoscientific work. It is high time politicians reformed the law. This will only come if campaigners maintain the momentum for reform during the forthcoming British general election and beyond.”

Richard Wiseman, Professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire and Author: “England’s libel laws and high legal costs can deter individuals from speaking out against bad science. They should be reformed to help ensure the public get the whole story.”

Ben Goldacre, Medical Doctor and Bad Science Columnist: “Laws that stifle debate harm patients, because in medicine we have seen repeatedly that people can do great harm, even when they intend to do good. So we can’t just tolerate criticism of our ideas and practises: we must welcome it, because criticism is the only way that our ideas and practises improve.”

Mark Le Fanu, Society of Authors: “Authors – particularly those who write biographies of the living or on current affairs – worry a great deal about the risk of being sued for libel as the law is so favourable to claimants. ‘If in doubt, leave it out’ is an unhealthy maxim that authors feel bound to follow.

As the law is known to be so helpful to claimants, opportunistic – sometimes wildly extravagant – claims are made by those who can afford to engage lawyers. Authors and publishers feel under pressure to capitulate, regardless of the strength of their case, knowing that defending a libel action is vastly expensive, hugely time-consuming, very worrying and highly unpredictable. That is why we support the campaign to reform the law of libel.”

Natasha Loder, The Economist and President, Association of British Science Writers: “Censorship doesn’t start in the courtroom, it doesn’t start with your editor, it doesn’t even start in the pen, it starts in my brain. The difficulty and cost of defending a libel case mean I am not able to write the truth, which has to be wrong.”

Mark Lewis, Media Lawyer: “Lawyers should be scared of doctors not doctors scared of lawyers.”

Marcus Chown, Author, Journalist and cosmology consultant to New Scientist: “It is depressing and deeply worrying to see the UK libel laws used to gag legitimate scientific debate. If nothing is done to rectify this situation, in the long run all of us, whose lives have been improved by the advances of medicine and science, will suffer.”

Marcus Brigstocke, Writer and Performer: “We urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about evidence. The notion that a scientist with legitimate questions to ask about the veracity of claims made by any practitioner or organisation claiming to serve the public and improve it’s health, should be intimidated into keeping silent for fear that the British legal system will find against him is abhorrent.”

Professor Michael Baum MB, FRCS, ChM, MD, FRCR, Professor Emeritus of Surgery and Visiting Professor of medical humanities, University College London: “The whole scientific community and all those who support evidence and compassion in the care of the sick and all those who think that the search for truth is a laudable activity, must stand shoulder to shoulder with Simon Singh in his fight against a legal system that encourages the propagation of arcane voodoo belief systems whilst inhibiting free speech.”

Diana Garnham, Chief Executive, The Science Council: “Delivery of professional health care should be based on science, not libel laws. It goes without saying that all professional health care scientists must be expected to base their professional practice on scientific methodology, encompassing both a rigorous evidence base and open peer review.”

Professor Les Iversen FRS, Department of Pharmacology, University of Oxford: “It is shocking that our health service is willing to use taxpayers money to provide alternative treatments that have not been scientifically validated, and even worse is the gagging of journalists who dare to point out the shortcomings of these treatments.”

Nick Ross, Broadcaster: “I spent some time this summer in the high court watching a most unusual libel trial – what made the case so improbable was that the defendant won.

Although the verdict was the right one the trial was not an edifying experience. Truth is frequently the casualty of a system that is supposed to ensure truth. A process that purports to protect vulnerable people from pernicious lies more generally protects the rich and acts as a gag on reasonable debate. Just the threat of litigation is often enough to halt rational discussion. And when that gag is applied to science it has particularly distasteful consequences. Science thrives on challenge. It relies on open publication. It can only prosper in an atmosphere of openness. When vested interests seek to censor it we are all endangered.

We are now witnessing a spate of legal actions against scientists and science writers. The law suits are against the public interest. And they must galvanise us into reforming the law so that scientists are not bullied into silence in the future.”

Roy Greenslade, Journalist: “I welcome all pressure that is being applied to Government to reform the iniquitous libel laws. We have delayed too long.”

Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science: “We have to show politicians that small tinkering with the libel laws won’t do – we need a real public interest defence. Otherwise, there will be more cases like those against Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst, and the libel laws will continue to be the tools of well-funded bullies who want to silence criticism.”

Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN: Our libel laws allow people accused of funding terrorism or dumping toxic waste in Africa to silence their critics whilst ‘super-injunctions’ stop the public from even knowing that such allegations exist. We need to reform our libel laws now, and that’s why we’re launching a national campaign to persuade our politicians to do so.

John Kampfner, the CEO of Index on Censorship: If we don’t act we’re at risk of becoming a global pariah. There are US States who view English libel law as so damaging to free speech they have passed laws to effectively block the decisions of English judges. Our report is an important milestone in modernising our antiquated and chilling approach to free expression.

The post Launch of National Campaign for Libel Reform appeared first on Index on Censorship.

Pinto is an outspoken journalist who regularly reports on environmental destruction, drug trafficking and political and corporate corruption in the Amazon region. Over the four decades of his career, he has faced death threats, physical attacks and dozens of criminal and civil lawsuits. He is only one of hundreds of journalists and others around the world who suffers the damaging consequences of enormous legal fees, lengthy and exhausting court cases and restraints on their ability to critically report on matters of high public interest.

Article 19, the global campaign for free expression, is concerned about the extent to which civil defamation laws worldwide undermine the right to free expression and result in the persecution of individuals such as Pinto. In a series of online maps published this week, Article 19 tracks the number of civil defamation cases filed in 176 countries around the world, and the amount of damages awarded by courts.

Criminal defamation laws remain on the statutes in many countries and, in places like Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey, these laws are actively used to prosecute individuals for writing, broadcasting or publishing information and opinions that may be critical of powerful government or corporate interests.

However, civil defamation cases, which are brought privately in civil courts, may also be used to silence criticism or opposition in countries where criminal defamation laws no longer apply.

European courts, for example, process far more civil defamation cases than any other region, with an average of 700 cases in each country annually. Moldova has the highest number of court cases in Europe, relative to the size of its population, and the highest amount of damages awarded was 80 times the per capita GDP for the country. Sweden and Germany jointly show the highest overall number of cases each year, although the usual damages awarded are relatively modest. Greece is the only European country to impose a limit on possible damages at $438,000, although the damages usually awarded in defamation cases are comparatively small across Europe, averaging $81,000.

Generally, however, the amount of damages awarded by courts in civil defamation cases is disproportionately high. India and Pakistan show the highest average damages, relative to each country’s per capita GDP.

In its daily work around the world, Article 19 sees evidence of the effects of costly civil court cases on journalists, editors, publishers and writers. Civil defamation cases that award excessive damages and allow extortionate legal fees provide a powerful incentive to litigious individuals and an equally powerful disincentive to media practitioners with finite resources.

In Spain, a former editor, Patxi Ibarrondo, was ordered in 2007 to pay 12 per cent of his monthly disability pension to cover damages awarded to Carlos Sáiz, the secretary-general of a political party. Ibarrondo’s newspaper, La Realidad, had been forced to close, with the loss of 30 jobs, when it could not afford to pay damages in the same case. Ibarrondo, financially ruined and suffering from Parkinson’s disease, subsequently had his bank account frozen and his legal defence withdrew when he could no longer pay them.

Our research further reveals that there are often political motives for civil defamation claims. In Singapore, the opposition politician Chee Soon Juan was banned from running for political office and travelling abroad without a permit because he had been declared bankrupt in 2006 and was in contempt of court. His bankruptcy was caused by the enormous damages he had been forced to pay after he lost a defamation case brought by the country’s ruling party.

Individuals do have a right to be protected from attacks on their personal reputation. International law is very clear on this matter — defamation law must balance the right to freedom of expression with the protection of reputation. There is no automatic hierarchy between these two rights but they can be balanced if there is a clear set of rules to do so.

A good defamation law should aim to protect people against false statements of fact that cause damage to their reputation. It should be defined as narrowly as possible, with clear stipulations about who may sue. It must also ensure that those sued are able to mount a proper defence and that any solutions set out by the courts should be proportionate. Remedies may include apologies, corrections or the right of reply for those whose reputation is compromised, and should rely less on disproportionate costs and damages.

Over the period of the research, there were 240 civil defamation or libel cases brought before courts in the UK. A process to reform English libel laws and decriminalise defamation is currently under way led by Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. It will send a powerful message to other countries that defamation laws need to properly balance the right to freedom of expression against the right to reputation.

Unfortunately, there is evidence across the globe demonstrating how civil defamation laws are used to stifle debate, discourage critical reporting and silence opposition. This “industry of compensation” is exploited by individuals holding positions of power who may wish to continue their illegal, corrupt or devious activities safe behind walls erected by aggressive lawyers and judges who may sometimes effectively collude against journalists and the media.

Dr Agnès Callamard is Executive Director of Article 19

The post The global libel war appeared first on Index on Censorship.

The post Straw announces working group on libel laws appeared first on Index on Censorship.