This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/24/labour-libel-empower-elite-puttnam

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What price freedom with Labour's stance on libel? What price freedom with Labour's stance on libel?
(7 months later)
At the 2010 election, British politicians were prepared to prove that parliamentary democracy still worked. When confronted with an oppressive power that was restricting freedom at home and shaming Britain abroad, all the main parties committed themselves to libel reform.At the 2010 election, British politicians were prepared to prove that parliamentary democracy still worked. When confronted with an oppressive power that was restricting freedom at home and shaming Britain abroad, all the main parties committed themselves to libel reform.
The Labour manifesto led the way. It promised "to encourage freedom of speech and access to information" by bringing "forward new legislation on libel". How pertinent its words now seem. No one can look at the scandals in public life and fail to notice that the ferocious punishments for speaking out are one cause of Britain's malaise. Fear of the libel laws has generated a calamitous unwillingness to expose wealthy men and institutions. The web revolution, which makes everyone a potential journalist, has also made reform more urgent. Laws that once fell on an elite press, which could afford to fight cases, are now falling on ordinary citizens, who most assuredly cannot, even when they have written in the public interest.The Labour manifesto led the way. It promised "to encourage freedom of speech and access to information" by bringing "forward new legislation on libel". How pertinent its words now seem. No one can look at the scandals in public life and fail to notice that the ferocious punishments for speaking out are one cause of Britain's malaise. Fear of the libel laws has generated a calamitous unwillingness to expose wealthy men and institutions. The web revolution, which makes everyone a potential journalist, has also made reform more urgent. Laws that once fell on an elite press, which could afford to fight cases, are now falling on ordinary citizens, who most assuredly cannot, even when they have written in the public interest.
The results of the cross-party consensus were not as liberal as I and my friends in the free speech movement wanted. But politics is compromise. The parties agreed on legislation that would have stopped London being "a town called sue" – the global capital of libel tourism – and would have made the British a little bit freer to speak and write. That was good enough for me.The results of the cross-party consensus were not as liberal as I and my friends in the free speech movement wanted. But politics is compromise. The parties agreed on legislation that would have stopped London being "a town called sue" – the global capital of libel tourism – and would have made the British a little bit freer to speak and write. That was good enough for me.
The Leveson inquiry into the Peeping Toms of the tabloids did not threaten reform. "I would be very surprised if anything that I was doing should prevent legislation being proposed and advanced because libel is not specifically within the terms of my reference," Lord Justice Leveson said early in the proceedings.The Leveson inquiry into the Peeping Toms of the tabloids did not threaten reform. "I would be very surprised if anything that I was doing should prevent legislation being proposed and advanced because libel is not specifically within the terms of my reference," Lord Justice Leveson said early in the proceedings.
His self-denying ordinance was understandable. Leveson looked at one small area of publishing – the press. Libel law covered everything from a student's tweets to a scientist's learned paper. The public seemed to understand the dangers of allowing this archaic legislation to survive in the new era of mass publishing.His self-denying ordinance was understandable. Leveson looked at one small area of publishing – the press. Libel law covered everything from a student's tweets to a scientist's learned paper. The public seemed to understand the dangers of allowing this archaic legislation to survive in the new era of mass publishing.
Tens of thousands signed petitions or came to meetings to defend science writers such as Simon Singh and Pete Wilmshurst, who had risked their life savings to protect the right to speak out against alternative therapists and pharmaceutical conglomerates. I had the honour of sharing platforms with them and thought them modern heroes. Here were men who would rather stand up for the open society than take the easier and cheaper option of denying the truth of their words and running away. My optimism only grew as politicians from all parties rallied to their cause.Tens of thousands signed petitions or came to meetings to defend science writers such as Simon Singh and Pete Wilmshurst, who had risked their life savings to protect the right to speak out against alternative therapists and pharmaceutical conglomerates. I had the honour of sharing platforms with them and thought them modern heroes. Here were men who would rather stand up for the open society than take the easier and cheaper option of denying the truth of their words and running away. My optimism only grew as politicians from all parties rallied to their cause.
How stupid I was. Earlier this month and at the last minute, Labour peers in the House of Lords, led by David Puttnam and Charles Falconer, a barrister who has rarely exerted himself to defend our freedoms, spatchcocked proposals from a Leveson inquiry, which did not even consider libel reform, into the libel reform bill. They knew Cameron would drop the bill rather than accept their wholesale rewrites. It's not just that he did not want to implement all of Leveson. Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had a deal on libel reform and Labour had broken it.How stupid I was. Earlier this month and at the last minute, Labour peers in the House of Lords, led by David Puttnam and Charles Falconer, a barrister who has rarely exerted himself to defend our freedoms, spatchcocked proposals from a Leveson inquiry, which did not even consider libel reform, into the libel reform bill. They knew Cameron would drop the bill rather than accept their wholesale rewrites. It's not just that he did not want to implement all of Leveson. Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had a deal on libel reform and Labour had broken it.
No matter. Labour carried on. It wanted judges to award punitive damages if a writer or publisher had "not first sought advice from a recognised independent regulatory board before publication".No matter. Labour carried on. It wanted judges to award punitive damages if a writer or publisher had "not first sought advice from a recognised independent regulatory board before publication".
In other words, writers must submit their work to a quango of censors or face enormous fines. This is pre-publication censorship, the favoured tool of dictators the world over. John Milton argued against it in Areopagitica, the first great defence of free speech in the English language. By the end of last week, Labour was scrambling to abandon its position. I doubt shame at breaking with the best values of the English radical tradition forced it to retreat. Someone must have told Falconer and Puttnam that the European Court of Human Rights had specifically ruled against prior restraint in 2011 and what the peers were proposing was, on the face of it, unlawful.In other words, writers must submit their work to a quango of censors or face enormous fines. This is pre-publication censorship, the favoured tool of dictators the world over. John Milton argued against it in Areopagitica, the first great defence of free speech in the English language. By the end of last week, Labour was scrambling to abandon its position. I doubt shame at breaking with the best values of the English radical tradition forced it to retreat. Someone must have told Falconer and Puttnam that the European Court of Human Rights had specifically ruled against prior restraint in 2011 and what the peers were proposing was, on the face of it, unlawful.
However, Labour is still insisting on a clause that says a newspaper outside its quango will face punitive damages in court "even if it had been successful" in fighting and winning a case. This strikes many legal authorities as a breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act that protects free speech and Article 6 that protects a fair trial. The detail, horrendous though it is, matters less to me than Labour's willingness to destroy libel reform. Be in no doubt that it exists. Lord Falconer and Harriet Harman's "people" told me they would rather see reform die than back down.However, Labour is still insisting on a clause that says a newspaper outside its quango will face punitive damages in court "even if it had been successful" in fighting and winning a case. This strikes many legal authorities as a breach of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act that protects free speech and Article 6 that protects a fair trial. The detail, horrendous though it is, matters less to me than Labour's willingness to destroy libel reform. Be in no doubt that it exists. Lord Falconer and Harriet Harman's "people" told me they would rather see reform die than back down.
If it dies, the bill's proposed ban on corporations, following the example of McDonald's, suing individual activists will die with it. If it dies, the proposed limits on the libel tourism racket that have allowed Russian, Ukrainian and Saudi billionaires, Icelandic bankers and African dictators to punish their critics in London will die with it. If it dies, the new public interest defence for contested speech, which is essential for bloggers and small publishers as well as investigative journalists, will die with it. If it dies, the planned defence of "honest opinion" that would have allowed the Simon Singhs of the future to criticise alternative health quacks without risking a £500,000 bill will die with it.If it dies, the bill's proposed ban on corporations, following the example of McDonald's, suing individual activists will die with it. If it dies, the proposed limits on the libel tourism racket that have allowed Russian, Ukrainian and Saudi billionaires, Icelandic bankers and African dictators to punish their critics in London will die with it. If it dies, the new public interest defence for contested speech, which is essential for bloggers and small publishers as well as investigative journalists, will die with it. If it dies, the planned defence of "honest opinion" that would have allowed the Simon Singhs of the future to criticise alternative health quacks without risking a £500,000 bill will die with it.
Labour doesn't care. "It is playing incredibly opportunist politics," said Michael Harris, spokesman for the Libel Reform Campaign and himself a Labour councillor. They party just wants to embarrass Cameron about his failure to agree with everything Leveson said. That's all that matters to them. So there you have it. Labour is prepared to break a manifesto commitment, weaken its adherence to the Human Rights Act and destroy the hopes of all those who want to use the freedom of the web to argue and publish without fear of disproportionate punishment. For what? For a handful of headlines in the papers. For a slot on the rolling news.Labour doesn't care. "It is playing incredibly opportunist politics," said Michael Harris, spokesman for the Libel Reform Campaign and himself a Labour councillor. They party just wants to embarrass Cameron about his failure to agree with everything Leveson said. That's all that matters to them. So there you have it. Labour is prepared to break a manifesto commitment, weaken its adherence to the Human Rights Act and destroy the hopes of all those who want to use the freedom of the web to argue and publish without fear of disproportionate punishment. For what? For a handful of headlines in the papers. For a slot on the rolling news.
The absence of serious principle tells you much about the modern Labour party. The people who will cheer the "progressive" Ed Miliband the loudest if reform fails will be Scientologists, oligarchs, CEOs, bankers, cranks with more money than sense and, of course, Charles Falconer's colleagues at the Bar. At a stroke, Miliband will take Labour back to what it was in the worst days of Blair and make it the plutocracy's good and faithful servant once again.The absence of serious principle tells you much about the modern Labour party. The people who will cheer the "progressive" Ed Miliband the loudest if reform fails will be Scientologists, oligarchs, CEOs, bankers, cranks with more money than sense and, of course, Charles Falconer's colleagues at the Bar. At a stroke, Miliband will take Labour back to what it was in the worst days of Blair and make it the plutocracy's good and faithful servant once again.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.