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/libel-reform-at-risk

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

Version 0 Version 1
Libel reform is at risk, all because of a fit of pique Libel reform is at risk, all because of a fit of pique
(7 months later)
"Yes, yes, yes". I don't usually yell when listening to the Today programme. I did last week when I heard this: "We are a liberal democracy and the press should be able to build relations, and people should be able to speak to the press.""Yes, yes, yes". I don't usually yell when listening to the Today programme. I did last week when I heard this: "We are a liberal democracy and the press should be able to build relations, and people should be able to speak to the press."
The interviewee was a former Scotland Yard officer who is now police and crime commissioner for Surrey. Kevin Hurley was debating the Leveson saga. He added: "I'm trying to raise the import of the freedom of the press and freedom of public officials to come forward and expose wrongdoing."The interviewee was a former Scotland Yard officer who is now police and crime commissioner for Surrey. Kevin Hurley was debating the Leveson saga. He added: "I'm trying to raise the import of the freedom of the press and freedom of public officials to come forward and expose wrongdoing."
My sense of relief, bordering on joy, might seem a little strange so early in the morning, particularly when someone is stating the blindingly obvious. But in contemporary Britain, a defence of a press that is robust and raucous is a rarity. In the 18 months since the Guardian produced its revelations about phone hacking, the trajectory has been in one direction: arrests, more arrests, and ever more curbs.My sense of relief, bordering on joy, might seem a little strange so early in the morning, particularly when someone is stating the blindingly obvious. But in contemporary Britain, a defence of a press that is robust and raucous is a rarity. In the 18 months since the Guardian produced its revelations about phone hacking, the trajectory has been in one direction: arrests, more arrests, and ever more curbs.
The question is not whether to stiffen regulation, but how. It is understandable why some are champing at the bit. After all, the industry has always been its own worst enemy: failing to act until it is too late, and acting only in its own interests.The question is not whether to stiffen regulation, but how. It is understandable why some are champing at the bit. After all, the industry has always been its own worst enemy: failing to act until it is too late, and acting only in its own interests.
Since Lord Justice Leveson produced his report in November, the squabbling has been unedifying. Most of it is pointless. The parameters for the future regulator are largely agreed. The areas of dispute are relatively small – focusing mainly on whether the lines of accountability are written into legal statute or via a royal charter. Each side accuses the other of bad faith. In order to produce a functioning system, both will have to give ground.Since Lord Justice Leveson produced his report in November, the squabbling has been unedifying. Most of it is pointless. The parameters for the future regulator are largely agreed. The areas of dispute are relatively small – focusing mainly on whether the lines of accountability are written into legal statute or via a royal charter. Each side accuses the other of bad faith. In order to produce a functioning system, both will have to give ground.
The stakes are high. The core in this debate is freedom of expression. Forget the principle and look at efficacy. Do societies operate better when the powerful are challenged? Is there more or less corruption, better or worse governance?The stakes are high. The core in this debate is freedom of expression. Forget the principle and look at efficacy. Do societies operate better when the powerful are challenged? Is there more or less corruption, better or worse governance?
Just as many misquote Voltaire, I'll misquote Alastair Campbell. You only get your message across when you're bored with the sound of your own voice. So, even though I've said this countless times before, including twice to Leveson, I'll say it again. Look back over the past 10 years and ask: did journalism find out too much or little about what the rich and powerful did in our name? Did we find out too much about weapons of mass destruction on the eve of Iraq? Did we uncover too much about the bankers? Jimmy Savile?Just as many misquote Voltaire, I'll misquote Alastair Campbell. You only get your message across when you're bored with the sound of your own voice. So, even though I've said this countless times before, including twice to Leveson, I'll say it again. Look back over the past 10 years and ask: did journalism find out too much or little about what the rich and powerful did in our name? Did we find out too much about weapons of mass destruction on the eve of Iraq? Did we uncover too much about the bankers? Jimmy Savile?
Journalism operates against two restraints – regulation and the law. In Britain both have been a mess. Most of the abhorrent actions against, say, the Dowler family, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies could and should have been dealt with by the police. Legislation against harassment, contempt, bribery and more are on the statute books. The fact that they were not relates more to the corruptibility of the police – an area woefully under-investigated by the Leveson inquiry.Journalism operates against two restraints – regulation and the law. In Britain both have been a mess. Most of the abhorrent actions against, say, the Dowler family, the McCanns and Christopher Jefferies could and should have been dealt with by the police. Legislation against harassment, contempt, bribery and more are on the statute books. The fact that they were not relates more to the corruptibility of the police – an area woefully under-investigated by the Leveson inquiry.
British journalism is not operating in a legal free-for-all. Rather the reverse. The most invidious chill on speech is defamation. So bad was our libel culture that Barack Obama signed into law the Speech Act, to protect Americans from English courts. A greater humiliation from our close ally is hard to conceive of. London was the port of call for oligarchs, sheikhs and corporations who wanted to stifle criticism anywhere in the world. London earned its nickname as "a town called sue".British journalism is not operating in a legal free-for-all. Rather the reverse. The most invidious chill on speech is defamation. So bad was our libel culture that Barack Obama signed into law the Speech Act, to protect Americans from English courts. A greater humiliation from our close ally is hard to conceive of. London was the port of call for oligarchs, sheikhs and corporations who wanted to stifle criticism anywhere in the world. London earned its nickname as "a town called sue".
That is why in 2009 we launched the libel reform campaign. From a standing start we persuaded all three main parties to put such a pledge in their manifestos. The draft defamation bill was tabled shortly after. It is by no means all that we wanted. Perhaps we've achieved half of our goals, but something is better than nothing. As a result it will be a little harder to intimidate people.That is why in 2009 we launched the libel reform campaign. From a standing start we persuaded all three main parties to put such a pledge in their manifestos. The draft defamation bill was tabled shortly after. It is by no means all that we wanted. Perhaps we've achieved half of our goals, but something is better than nothing. As a result it will be a little harder to intimidate people.
Just as we were about to clear the final hurdle, in the upper house, Lord Puttnam and others inserted a number of provisions into the defamation bill that would make matters considerably worse. They want to bring in prior notification (newspapers must tell people before they write anything bad about them). When Max Mosley tried that on, the European court in Strasbourg sent him packing. The Labour-dominated peers also want to introduce exemplary damages for those media institutions that do not join a regulator – a stick favoured by regimes of the former Soviet Union. They did all of this in a fit of pique that the Leveson changes were not being introduced fast enough.Just as we were about to clear the final hurdle, in the upper house, Lord Puttnam and others inserted a number of provisions into the defamation bill that would make matters considerably worse. They want to bring in prior notification (newspapers must tell people before they write anything bad about them). When Max Mosley tried that on, the European court in Strasbourg sent him packing. The Labour-dominated peers also want to introduce exemplary damages for those media institutions that do not join a regulator – a stick favoured by regimes of the former Soviet Union. They did all of this in a fit of pique that the Leveson changes were not being introduced fast enough.
The defamation bill returns to the Lords on Monday. It is vital that Puttnam (a good man who seems to have lost his bearings on free speech) withdraws his amendments. If he and his allies stand firm, the government would be put in an impossible position. Kill the defamation bill or introduce draconian measures by the back door.The defamation bill returns to the Lords on Monday. It is vital that Puttnam (a good man who seems to have lost his bearings on free speech) withdraws his amendments. If he and his allies stand firm, the government would be put in an impossible position. Kill the defamation bill or introduce draconian measures by the back door.
This battle is about more than press regulation. Politicians have for years complained that journalists have ideas "above their station". They loathe the humiliation meted out by the expenses scandal (it's worth remembering that Labour wanted to make expenses details exempt from freedom of information).This battle is about more than press regulation. Politicians have for years complained that journalists have ideas "above their station". They loathe the humiliation meted out by the expenses scandal (it's worth remembering that Labour wanted to make expenses details exempt from freedom of information).
Labour and the Liberal Democrats (who seem increasingly seduced by an agenda of control rather than liberties) need to think again before it is too late. Freedom of expression is hard won, and easily lost.Labour and the Liberal Democrats (who seem increasingly seduced by an agenda of control rather than liberties) need to think again before it is too late. Freedom of expression is hard won, and easily lost.
Ultimately, it is about revenge and power. We know from the bitter experience of other countries, including some in the EU such as Hungary and Italy, what happens when politicians think it is time to bring journalism down a peg or two.Ultimately, it is about revenge and power. We know from the bitter experience of other countries, including some in the EU such as Hungary and Italy, what happens when politicians think it is time to bring journalism down a peg or two.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.