In a blaze of positive publicity, the coalition Government announced itself the great defender of freedoms and promised the great Law Burning Act (or something like that) to ensure we could all insult whoever we wanted and camp wherever there was enough green space (or something like that).
Reality hasn’t always lived up to political rhetoric. So in the name of greater public accountability among the first acts of the freedom-loving über-democrats of the coalition were appointing 200 new unelected peers to make sure the other lot of unelected peers couldn’t scupper their plans to make it harder to sack the Government. Blimey.
But the coalition has a chance to redeem itself as it ponders options to put in to legislate for one of its manifesto commitments – or two of them, as both parties were pledged to act.
Before the general election, Justice Secretary Jack Straw was being slowly dragged kicking and screaming to back the case for libel reform. Now the new Government is expected to act. Like all oppositions, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were vociferous in their condemnation of the current libel regime which acts to silence dissent, stifle investigative journalism and protect the rich and powerful.
In the face of an excellent campaign and in the wake of a growing number of courtroom scandals, there was a growing backlash against the use of libel law to protect the private interests of the few against the public interest of the many, according to Jonathon Heawood, director of English PEN, the charity that promotes literature and human rights.
Even the United Nations human rights committee has said English libel law has “served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest”. It is not just journalism that suffers when the rich and powerful are able to use libel laws to draw a cloak of secrecy over their activities.
The Libel Reform Campaign has documented cases where scientists, campaigners, NGOs, performers, bloggers, authors, academics have all faced a barrage of libel threats in response to critical reporting.
Simon Singh’s recent victory in defending himself against a libel action brought by the British Chiropractic Association is wonderful news – but it represents just one chink of light in an increasingly dark outlook for free speech.
For every victory, there are thousands forced to withdraw articles, scrap publications or abandon free speech in the face of draconian laws. It is now up to Government to reform the libel laws. Among the changes campaigners want to see are a stronger public interest defence, a cap on damages, a requirement on the claimant to prove damage and falsity and a new definition of “publication” – preferably one which doesn’t rely on an obscure 1849 judgement in the Duke of Brunswick case. This effectively means as long as a few copies of the publication have been bought, distributed or downloaded in England, a libel action can be launched in that jurisdiction. In the age of the internet, such a law is a gift to every dodgy mafia boss, corrupt corporation or crooked politician.
Such steps would help stop London being the favoured destination for libel tourists. Libel cases in England are estimated to cost 140 times more than such cases in mainland Europe. That’s why big companies rush to London, because ordinary people are prevented by cost from defending free speech. Freedom of expression must not be curbed by cost. Free speech is not for sale.
So what can be done? Call me a cynic, but what a party says in opposition often bears only a passing to resemblance to the legislation it actually comes up with once in power. The fine words of manifestos and campaign speeches now need to be turned in to a law which acknowledges the collective value of information and ideas and promotes, but doesn’t hinder, freedom of expression.
We all have a key role to play to help achieve that aim by keeping the pressure on politicians to support a bill for major reforms – signing the petition at www.libelreform.org is a useful first step.
Jeremy Dear is general secretary of the National Union of Journalists
