Libel law reform: Don't Panic! It's a Good Thing
Several people are linking to an ill-informed post by Mike Smithson at Political Betting entitled Is Labour about to clamp-down on the blogsphere? about possible reforms to the UK defamation and libel laws. I have no idea what Mike's source is, but mine is open and to the point. Padraig from Index on Censorship attended a Westminster Hall debate this week and wrote it up for Liberal Conspiracy.
He, and I, are very hopeful about the results of the debate, and the Govt has agreed a consultation that will pay specific attention to libel and the internet. As this is something I've been calling for for some time, it's great to see progress being made. My comment to Mr Smithson is below the cut for those that don't like wading through 350+ off topic tangents about unrelated subjects and discussions from previous thread:
ETA, before the cut, Padraig's posted an update on LC, definitely worth a read for everyone that allows open comments and talks about, well, people on their journal.
ETA2: John Hemming MP also agrees on comment screening-"In the mean time (and rightly) we have the odd situation that someone who moderates comments can be liable for libel, but someone who doesn't moderate comments cannot."
Way to cry wolf Mike, seriously, you seem to be completely misinterpreting what’s going on. An adjournment debate was held in the Hall this week, with cross party support for consultation on reform of the libel and defamation law, paying specific interest in the effect it has on the internet.
Padraig from Index on Censorship was there, and wrote it up for LC:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/17/libel-progress-at-commons/
If you publish something that’s defamatory, you’re already subject to libel proceedings, making it a small claims court issue would reduce the costs to you, not increase them.
In addition, by allowing free comment without moderation you give yourself an absolute defence under law, as long as you remove defamatory remarks in comments when informed-the poster would naturally still be liable for slander as per Eady’s recent judgement.
If you pre-moderate, then you become liable because you’re actively publishing them.
We need reform to the libel laws as bloggers, and the Govt has said it will implement a full consultation. Otherwise we can expect to see many many repeats of the Usmanov affair and similar.
This sort of inflammatory ill judged post makes it less likely we’ll get the reforms we need. Serioiusly, you’re one of the top blogs online, the consultation would be happy to work with you if you got in touch, as would Index on Censorship and similar (I’ve pointed them here already as it’s much more their field than mine).
I added a link to the Eady case as it's important, other useful links are:
Defamation
Basic Libel for Idiots
All three have been in my 'to post' folder for far too long. Really should remember that a quick knockabout post with links is frequently more effective than articles so well researched they never actually see the light of day.
He, and I, are very hopeful about the results of the debate, and the Govt has agreed a consultation that will pay specific attention to libel and the internet. As this is something I've been calling for for some time, it's great to see progress being made. My comment to Mr Smithson is below the cut for those that don't like wading through 350+ off topic tangents about unrelated subjects and discussions from previous thread:
ETA, before the cut, Padraig's posted an update on LC, definitely worth a read for everyone that allows open comments and talks about, well, people on their journal.
ETA2: John Hemming MP also agrees on comment screening-"In the mean time (and rightly) we have the odd situation that someone who moderates comments can be liable for libel, but someone who doesn't moderate comments cannot."
Way to cry wolf Mike, seriously, you seem to be completely misinterpreting what’s going on. An adjournment debate was held in the Hall this week, with cross party support for consultation on reform of the libel and defamation law, paying specific interest in the effect it has on the internet.
Padraig from Index on Censorship was there, and wrote it up for LC:
http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2008/12/17/libel-progress-at-commons/
If you publish something that’s defamatory, you’re already subject to libel proceedings, making it a small claims court issue would reduce the costs to you, not increase them.
In addition, by allowing free comment without moderation you give yourself an absolute defence under law, as long as you remove defamatory remarks in comments when informed-the poster would naturally still be liable for slander as per Eady’s recent judgement.
If you pre-moderate, then you become liable because you’re actively publishing them.
We need reform to the libel laws as bloggers, and the Govt has said it will implement a full consultation. Otherwise we can expect to see many many repeats of the Usmanov affair and similar.
This sort of inflammatory ill judged post makes it less likely we’ll get the reforms we need. Serioiusly, you’re one of the top blogs online, the consultation would be happy to work with you if you got in touch, as would Index on Censorship and similar (I’ve pointed them here already as it’s much more their field than mine).
I added a link to the Eady case as it's important, other useful links are:
Defamation
Basic Libel for Idiots
All three have been in my 'to post' folder for far too long. Really should remember that a quick knockabout post with links is frequently more effective than articles so well researched they never actually see the light of day.