Home > Martin Bright

Monday 23 November 2009

The Growing Campaign on Libel

Sunday, 19th July 2009

Very good to see Nick Cohen banging the drum for the reform of the libel laws in today's Observer. He raises the case of the mathematicians who dismantled the economic models of the bankers who destroyed the UK's financial system. Ministers have urged them to speak out, but they are wisely wary of the libel laws and the way they have been used by chiropracters against their fellow rationalist Simon Singh.

Here's Nick: "The naive, who suppose that the law would protect mathematicians who told the truth, do not understand the wretched condition of freedom of speech in England. The exorbitant costs of libel actions are far beyond the means of all academics and, increasingly, most newspapers; Simon Singh can only fight the chiropractors because he is the author of four international bestsellers. As important, the law is biased against defendants and judges put the worst possible interpretation on a writer's words. In all likelihood, a mathematician who criticised the models of Goldman Sachs, say, or the Royal Bank of Scotland would find himself in court defending assertions he never realised he had made.

Thus, after the worst crash since 1929, and with the world economy in crisis, people who know what went wrong and why it went wrong are too frightened to go public. If their fear does not make the case for reform of the libel laws on American lines, I don't know what will. We should have free debate on matters of public importance, as long as writers are not malicious and do not display a wild disregard for the truth."

There is a growing recognition that tthe libel laws are becoming an embarrassment to Britain. With large organisations consistently folding to the merest whiff of a threat from Carter Ruck, free speech (and the scientific principle) is seriosuly under threat. The latest to pay up is the BBC, which has just settled with the MCB's "Secretary General" Muhammad Abdul Bari. It is now the case that local newspapers almost never fight libel actions and it won't be long before the same is the case for our struggling nationals.

I have had my own encounters with these pernicous laws and urge everyone to read the details of the important parliamentary debate on the mattter last December. There is the beginnings of a cross-party consensus on this issue: Denis MacShane, Michael Gove, Evan Harris and Norman Lamb all spoke eloquently during the exchanges. Such is the power of these laws that I would advise anyone referring or linking to my battles with the Iraqi-British billionaire Nadhmi Auchi should refer only to the contents of this debate, which is covered by parliamentary privilege.

Filed under: Libel (5 more articles) , Nick Cohen (4 more articles) , Recesssion (1 more articles) , Simon Singh (2 more articles)

Previous Back to Martin Bright Next

Blogs: Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (13)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

King Tut

July 19th, 2009 11:46am Report this comment

so that's the BBC, or Al-Beeb, paying 45 000 sterling OF TAXPAYERS MONEY to the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britian. who has promised to give it to charity. ... the MCB is a registered charity so the UK taxpayers are now putting money straight into the pockets of hate mongering islamofacists. none of whom would last a minute in any arab country as we don't mess around with human rights and free speach out here, oh no....

Carly

July 19th, 2009 12:10pm Report this comment

Even the US Congress is deciding whether to pass a law that will allow the libel rulings from Judges in this country to be ignored and therefore will not apply in the US or to US citizens. This is an embarrassment for this country when our strongest ally is considering such an option. It also underlines how this once great country is stifling free speech, not just here at home but around the world. Shameful.

Pat

July 19th, 2009 12:35pm Report this comment

It appears that libel laws at present only address defamation of character and nothing else. Actions are exhorbitantly expensive, hence victory goes far too often to biggest purse. Further damages appear to be almost entirely monetary, with any retraction being incidental
I would propose that libel laws should be widened to include any false statement (as any false statement could mislead any reader and thus cause them loss), that the primary restitution should be a retraction at least as prominent as the original statement and that monetary recompense should be limited to monies provably lost between original publication and retraction.
Further, to limit costs, if any case is not decided in one day in court it should be judged that libel is not proved- and the case can only go on from there if the plaintiff undertakes to pay all the costs.
It might be worth taking into account that a false accusation of libel is itself a libel.

Rhoda Klapp

July 19th, 2009 1:17pm Report this comment

I'd hate to lose the principle that anything you publish about someone which is defamatory ought to be true, and defensibly true at that. The real problem is the cost. Lawyers involved, justice out of the window.

If we are really basically seeking to establish two things, the truth of a statement and the degree of defamation/harm/loss, I don't see why it need to be any more complicated than small claims court. This would be true for many civil actions, no special case for libel, methinks. Now try to get a parliament composed overwhelmingly of lawyer scum to approve that.

John Page

July 19th, 2009 1:19pm Report this comment

As Ian Hislop has been stressing again to a parliamentary committee fairly recently, much of our libel case law is being made by one judge.

Olaf Rye

July 19th, 2009 2:42pm Report this comment

This is a disgraceful situation and it is splendid work by Martin Bright and others to bring this problem to the public attention. When the truth can be stifled by people threatening libel suits, there is a serious problem with the law. Why is this country so obsessed, at every level, with spin ? It is no wonder that no one trusts a word uttered by another person, agency, judge, etc.

Stan, UK

July 19th, 2009 10:03pm Report this comment

John Page you are right. It is Judge Eady. He is the biggest threat to free speech in this country. Judges in this country are not accountable to the people and therefore should APPLY laws (made by politicians) not MAKE laws!

Organic cheeseboard

July 20th, 2009 8:20am Report this comment

funny how that a website with piece on evil libel laws is refusing to put some non-libellous comments up, isn't it? Surely Martin Bright is up in arms!

Phil

July 20th, 2009 10:03am Report this comment

Tim Johnson, Cohen's sole source for his story, writes in comments:
"I feel a bit stitched up by Nick Cohen. In my opinion he has mixed quotes I made in order to create a story."

Specifically, Cohen asked him if he felt "gagged" by libel law. He said no, he didn't.

No story. No connection with the Singh case, let alone the Auchi case.

Chris

July 21st, 2009 7:57am Report this comment

Martin - have you not noticed that British governments, of whatever political party, do not do sensible useless legislation. If it's ridiculous laws on what breed of dog you can have or a vast bureaucracy whose sole function is to accuse people like Philip Pulman of being a paedophile, then the British government are the people to go to. However, if you want something at all useful doing, like sorting out mobile phone charges, you just have to hope that someone in Brussels can concoct an excuse for the EU to do it. Otherwise it just isn't going to happen.

Nick Drew

July 21st, 2009 3:58pm Report this comment

The libel laws may be in dire need of whatever, but this mathematicians tale is just silly:

http://cityunslicker.blogspot.com/2009/07/maths-and-libel-laws-so-sue-me.html

Quant

July 22nd, 2009 8:31am Report this comment

There are details of what mathematicians actually think at
http://magic-maths-money.blogspot.com/2009/07/even-mathematicians-run-scared-of.html

Bright chooses a good quote from Cohen's article, but much of the original article, as Nick Drew identifies, is silly.

E F Orwell

August 13th, 2009 1:26pm Report this comment

The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal the end of Free Speech. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’ have launched a one of kind High Court action for a pre publishing test case for libel against Tyrone D Murphy, the author of an exposé book about the club. The book has not been completed yet and the case seems to be based on what could be written and not what has been written. www.g-book.co.uk is the book web site

What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet. This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists

Post comment