15 Apr 2010 | News and features, Uncategorized
All the major political parties now back libel reform — and the Libel Reform campaign celebrates 50,000 signatures in support of change
The Libel Reform Campaign welcomes manifesto commitments to reform England’s libel laws from all three of Britain’s main political parties. On Monday, the Labour party pledged to reform libel laws in their manifesto, followed by the Conservative party on Tuesday and the Liberal Democrats today. The focus now shifts to ensuring the politicians act on their commitments and to the substance of the reforms.
The Libel Reform Campaign has highlighted the chilling effect that our libel laws have on freedom of expression in the UK and overseas. This morning the campaigns petition received its 50,000th signature calling for libel reform, to sign up visit www.libelreform.org .
The Manifesto Pledges
The Labour party manifesto released on 12 April said:
To encourage freedom of speech and access to information, we will bring forward new legislation on libel to protect the right of defendants to speak freely.
The Conservative party manifesto released on 13 April said:
We will review and reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism.
The Liberal Democrat party manifesto released on 14 April said:
[We will] Protect free speech, investigative journalism and academic peer-reviewed publishing through reform of the English and Welsh libel laws — including by requiring corporations to show damage and prove malice or recklessness, and by providing a robust responsible journalism defence.
The Libel Reform campaign says
Jo Glanville, the Editor of Index on Censorship said:
Now we have a commitment to reform through the Parliamentary process, we need to ensure that we get the type of robust reform that will entrench the fundamental right to freedom of expression for writers, human rights activists, scientists and academics and not watered-down reforms that well-paid lawyers will slowly dilute further.
Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN said:
Through strength of argument and strength of numbers we have persuaded all three major political parties that it’s time to reform our libel laws. These cross-party manifesto commitments will ensure that even in the event of a hung parliament, there is one thing the next government will agree on: libel reform.
Tracey Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science said:
The political parties have agreed with our campaign and said enough is enough, we simply can’t continue with our unfair and ridiculed libel laws. We need freedom of speech that we can exercise confidently, to discuss science and medicine or any other subject of public interest. Not semi-feudal laws that tie people up in court for two years and chill public discussion.
15 Apr 2010 | News and features, United Kingdom
Simon Singh wins! The British Chiropractic Association(BCA) has today served a Notice of Discontinuance bringing to an end its libel claim against Dr Simon Singh. The science writer was accused of libel for an article in which he cast doubt on chiropractors’ claims of success in treatment of childhood conditions including colic, ear infections, asthma.
Earlier this month Simon Singh scored a crucial victory in his libel defence against the British Chiropractic Association. In a judgment handed down by the court of appeal, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that Singh’s contention that the BCA promoted “bogus” treatments was “a statement of opinion, and one backed by reasons”.
The judgment allowed Singh to pursue a defence of “fair comment”, the ruling could have a defining effect on the entire concept of “fair comment” in English libel law.
Update: Read the BCA’s statement here
PLUS: A good week for libel reform. All the major political parties now back change — and the campaign celebrates 50,000 signatures in support of libel reform
From the Index on Censorship archives: Floyd Abrams’s on libel Through the looking-glass
Timeline
2008 April Singh publishes an article about chiropractic in the Guardian
2008 July The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) sues Singh personally for libel
2009 May High Court gives a negative ruling on the meaning of Singh’s article
2009 June Singh asks for permission to appeal the ruling on meaning (paper application)
2009 July Mr Justice Eady rejects the application to appeal
2009 August Oral hearing on leave to appeal
2009 October Leave to appeal granted
2010 February Lord Chief Justice says he is “baffled” by case
2010 April 1 Decision on meaning of original Singh article
14 Apr 2010 | Index Index, minipost, Uncategorized
Islamist insurgents have banned music from radio broadcasts claiming its un-Islamic. Stations have already complied with the order, issued at the beginning of April, as workers feared for their safety. The BBC report that all but two of the Mogadishu’s 15 radio stations used to broadcast music. Last week, the armed Islamic group al-Shabaab banned the re-broadcast of BBC productions in Somalia, claiming they were against Muslisms and Islam.
14 Apr 2010 | Uncategorized
Two Chinese newspapers — the Chongqing Times and West China City Daily — have been forced to make public apologies after publishing exposés on a recent Chinese Writers’ Association (CWA) meeting. The papers alleged attendees at the Seventh Congress of the CWA stayed in the presidential suites of a five star hotel, ate at lavish banquets and were “whisked away from the airport in Audis”. The CWA hit back, providing a receipt from the Sofitel hotel in an attempt to prove their expenses were moderated, although the receipt was dated 2 April, despite the fact that the event ran from 30 March – 4 April.
The reporter who wrote the original story has now been sacked, and various other staff at the Chongqing Times have also been disciplined and demoted. In a front page apology published on 11 April, the Chongqing Times extolled the virtues of the CWA, promising to “vigorously promote the great efforts of the Chinese Writers’ Association and its authors, whose excellent work reflects society, eulogises our era, [and] enriches the cultural life of the masses”. At the same time, it berated its editors for not “reporting fully on the grand spectacle of this conference, publicising its fruitful accomplishments” and having
a weak political sensitivity and lack[ing] a sense of political responsibility… causing irreparable harm to the Chinese Writers’ Association and the writers attending the conference. This lesson has been profound, and we express our deep sorrow and remorse.
Meanwhile, in order to cultivate an image of a nation of growing “openness” and “transparency”, Xinhua News Agency yesterday published an in-depth interview with the deputy chief of the government’s Internet Affairs Bureau, Liu Zhengrong. The bureau Liu manages is responsible for internet censorship and conversation centred around the development of online media and technology in China. While many aspects were positive, one in particular held a disturbingly chilling tone.
In one section entitled “There is no absolute freedom on the internet”, Liu states that every nation in the world maintains control over internet content and access; he claims that the measures taken by China are no different from those of any others. Although this is true to some extent, no other country has an institutionalised national filtering system as extensive as the Great Firewall, or imprisons the same number of bloggers and netizens.
In order to protect the welfare of the public, Liu said:
We advocate the self-regulation of corporations, and that society help in the supervision and inspection of internet content, as well as the essential technological strategies needed to prevent the circulation of harmful information online. These are the same methods shared internationally by other countries across the world.
The reference to the “self-regulation of corporations” could be seen as a warning to other companies who are considering following in Google’s footsteps and trying to take on the Chinese government. The suggestion that society help in the “inspection” appears to advocate the type of astroturfing carried out by the 50 Cent Party (Wu Mao Dang).
In an attempt to re-educate Chinese netizens, Liu advises those who believe that people “can say whatever they want” in other countries that they are misinformed, the internet is never completely uncensored. According to Liu, the ministry visited and compared internet management methods in more than 30 countries across the world, and concluded that there was “no such thing as absolute freedom online.”
Liu emphasised that whilst the internet gave a platform for people to discuss and exchange ideas, those who decide to express themselves publicly carry the responsibility to ensure that their views “abide by the laws of the government”.
This account by an official government spokesperson is, of course, only available in the Chinese version of Xinhua.
