Libel: boring but important.......

Well, kiss me neck; Dave is actually going to keep a promise – the one about reforming the libel laws. I missed it in the DT, but then it wasn’t very prominent.

The proposals will be important to bloggers.

Its main but not only purpose is to put an end to the abuse of ‘libel tourism’ whereby wealthy foreigners, mainly American, sue in the English courts to silence their critics. Often the connection with England is tenuous to say the least, such as publication on a Ukrainian web-site that secured only 6 readers in England. I find this particularly offensive because it is not designed to protect the reputation of the plaintiff but to intimidate the defendant into silence by threat of legal action that the plaintiff can  afford and the defendant cannot.

The intention is to make cases fairer, simpler and cheaper. The legal procedures will be speeded up; new rules will require the areas of dispute to be narrowed before trial; and cases will be heard by a judge without a jury.

One big change is that the plaintiff must show serious harm to his reputation.

A second is that qualified privilege will be extended. This has always been a tricky defence, especially the burden of showing that the matter complained of was in the public interest, something quite different form ‘interesting to the public’.

In its place comes a defence of ‘honest opinion’. This will be especially helpful in peer-reviewed academic journals, so that scientists and other professionals can do their work without fear of an expensive law suit.

There will also be a definition of ‘responsible journalism’ (no easy task I guess!).

The definition will cover the seriousness of the allegation made, fact-checking, whether comment had been sought, the tone of the article and the circumstances of publication.

From our blogging perspective, an important feature is that greater protection will be given to ‘secondary’ publishers, such as booksellers and to internet service providers and web-sites on which other people write the content.

Is this tantamount to an indemnity for blogging sites, leaving the legal liability with the blogger alone?

We shall have to await the text of the bill. There may well be significant amendments arising from Leveson (apropos which we have seen no reference to the disgusting outing of the blogger ,nightjar, by the Times through illegal hacking).

But it does seem as if Mr Justice Eady, the Judge Jeffreys of the defamation court, will be able to spend more time with his pension.

Meanwhile, take care out there!