Tighter privacy laws would only serve the rich and powerful
The report by MPs on privacy talks of the importance of free expression, but the measures it proposes fly in the face of that aim, says Index’s John Kampfner
Germany’s Mein Kampf ban has not stopped anti-Semitism
The prohibition of Hitler’s infamous work is a symbolic measure that has lost all impact, says Daniella Peled
(more…)
Index on Censorship chief testifies at Leveson Inquiry
Index on Censorship and English PEN championed the cause of libel reform at the Leveson Inquiry this morning.
Index CEO John Kampfner and English PEN director Jonathan Heawood stressed that access to justice needed to be improved, arguing that the costs of bringing libel claims forward are “enormous, frightening and chilling”.
Kampfner said it was also “extremely difficult for media faced with a wall of laws and other restrictions to find out otherwise legitimate information.”
The pair advocated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to provide fairer access to justice through offering a fast and inexpensive mediation service. Preliminary research last year showed that 96 per cent of defamation cases could be successfully mediated.
Lord Justice Leveson questioned whether or not wealthier parites would choose to take a claimant to court rather than opt for mediation. Heawood admitted he had “wrestled with” this problem.
Kampfner stressed it would be a “tragedy” if the Inquiry’s ongoing work inadvertently delayed the insertion of libel into the Queen’s speech in May. Lord Justice Leveson replied that libel reform was not directly in his remit, but said he would like to offer a “considered response”.
The pair were also quizzed by counsel Robert Jay and Leveson about the balance of 8 (right to privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of speech). Heawood stressed it was not the case that one was more important than the other, but rather that they are “complementary”.
On privacy, Heawood argued that there was a difference between a harmful publication in a newspaper and “real intrusion.” He cited JK Rowling’s testimony of a slipping a note into her daughter’s schoolbag as “tresspass”.
Kampfner, former editor of the New Statesman, lamented the “weaknesses” in the British media. Recounting his time as a lobby reporter, he described a “culture of services rendered” in political journalism. “Westminster is all about spin doctors feeding journalists on daily basis,” he said, adding that the so-called feral beats of the media were often “locked up”.
But Kampfner warned emphatically against a statutory element of regulation, arguing that it was unnecessary in a “robust environment”. He added that Parliament’s record in navigating the course towards better transparency and accountability was “very poor indeed”.
Citing Hungary’s “seemingly innocuous” co-regulation model, which gives the country’s Media Council the power to impose fines, Kampfner said: “be careful what you wish for.”
Heawood was largely in agreement, arguing that co-regulation was often wrongly seen as a “holy grail” or a “magical third way between statutory and self-regulation.”
Kampfner urged for improved corporate governance and editorial management. “The ‘I was in Tuscany’ excuse from editors is no excuse,” he said. “The buck stops with editors.” He suggested organisations’ quarterly board meetings having an agenda item on standards, and an improved regulator should have a standards arm.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
Index on Censorship Submission to the Leveson Inquiry January 2012
Leveson must not delay reform of our dreadful libel laws
This article was originally published in The Times
Sometimes the most reasonable-looking laws can cause the most damage. Let’s hope members of the Leveson inquiry into media ethics are familiar with this awkward fact. In France, stringent privacy laws have prevented investigation into the dodgy financial dealings of leading public figures. In Hungary, a media law has in a matter of months emasculated a free press, leading to radio stations being closed down and reporters and editors fired. That law includes many items on the wish lists of several witnesses to the inquiry, such as press regulation, licensing and fines.
In the UK journalists pride themselves on the irreverence and bolshiness of their newspapers. Yet despite the outrageous behaviour that led to the phone-hacking scandal, the real problem with Britain’s press is that it is too weak. It finds out far too little. If the job of journalism is to put into the public domain inconvenient truths that the rich and powerful would like to hide, then the performance of Britain’s press is nothing to be proud of. Part of this is economic (investigations are costly); laziness is another factor.
By far the biggest reason, however, is the number of laws that impede proper scrutiny. The most pernicious area is our defamation culture. Index on Censorship, together with its partners, has been leading the campaign to reform England’s libel laws. A defamation Bill has been drafted and should be included in the Queen’s Speech in May, as ministers have promised. Libel reform was, after all, part of the coalition agreement.
London has for years been a rich men’s playground, with oligarchs, oil barons and autocrats using our plaintiff-friendly courts to bully bloggers, newspapers and civil society groups. It was bad enough when the creators of South Park satirised our legal system (with Tom Cruise threatening: “I’m going to sue you — in England!”), but when President Obama signed into law the Speech Act, designed to protect Americans from English libel rulings, we went from farce to tragedy. MP’s rightly described that action as a “national humiliation” for the UK.
Until recently, libel reform appeared on course; broad consensus has been achieved on the main points of a final Bill. Yet some are now calling for delay, for defamation to be thrown into the post-Leveson soup. This would be folly. As he proceeds in his vital task of improving the standards of British journalism, Lord Justice Leveson should make clear that his inquiry will not be used as a device to delay implementation of a law that goes to the heart of democracy and the public’s right to know.
John Kampfner is chief executive of Index on Censorship