It looks like the Stalinists within the government are going to try to succeed where the European Commission has failed - to silence blogs. PoliticalBetting has a story today alleging that the government intends to tighten up libel laws to make it easier to sue bloggers. Mike Smithson writes...My understanding is that a green paper will be published in the New Year setting out plans to make it easier for people to sue for defamation. The idea is to cut down the disproportionate costs of bringing a libel action and there’s even a suggestion that there could be a small claims court for libel.
The move is bound to be seen as a way of dealing with government irritants such as Guido and to a lesser extent Iain Dale.
It could have serious consequences for PB as well. The ability for people to publish comments instantly is one of the things that makes this site. If everything had to be moderated before going out then PB could not exist in the form that we know at the moment.
Nor could this blog. This all seems to have emanated from a debate on libel in Westminster Hall on Monday. Winding up the debate, the Justice Minister Bridget Prentice (who has figured on this blog HERE and HERE in recent weeks) said...
We will publish as soon as possible in the new year a consultation paper on defamation and the internet, and later, as part of the proposed consultation, we will also seek views on the abolition of criminal libel in respect of defamatory material. On the issue of conditional fee agreements, some important points have been made about opportunities for people with very little means, and we are therefore very keen to ensure that the current situation continues. We are also concerned about the disproportionate cost of defamation proceedings, we are considering whether additional measures might be necessary to control those costs, and we will consult on that shortly.
Should we be worried? Well, let's not go over the top until we see the consultation paper, but anything which it makes it easier for people to sue for libel will certainly have an impact on how independent and privately run blogs operate. A good thing too, some might say. But in any change to the law, the government must bear in mind that individual bloggers are not in a position to get legal advice and have to be their own editors. Sometimes they may make errors with no malice intended. All this means that MSM bloggers will become even more powerful as they have the backing of large organisations if something goes wrong. And it means that blogs like this may have to operate in a much more 'vanilla' environment where no risks are taken.
If Labour want to stop me blogging, this is exactly the way to go about it, I guess. But I would hope that even they would in the end see sense. We shall see.
36 comments:
That woman has scary eyes!
Lefties will fail at this like everything else as they try to snuffle out free speech and descent.
Ms Prentice is the Very Model of a Modern Labour Minister:
Iam the very model of a modern Labour Minister
My words are often cynical, my motivation sinister
I know the laws of England though for me they don't quite register
From Habeus to Corpus, Magna Carta doesn't matter here!
I'm very well acquainted too with matters all political
I understand elections, swing, and all the tricks to rig 'em all
On Paliamentary theorem I am teeming with a lot o'news
With many cheerful facts to use to baffle and befuddle you
I know about the people struggling through in this economy
Yet 'coz I am a Minister it doesn't really bother me
As I make loads of cash from all my Interests on the Register
I am the very model of a modern Labour Minister
Chorus
As she makes loads of cash from all her Interests on the Register
She is the very model of a modern Labour Minister
I know our country's history from Thatcher to Jim Callaghan
I've studied all our foreign wars from Falklands to Afghanistan
And yet I signed the sales forms giving weapons to the Taliban
Because I'm not like Churchill, I am rather more like Chamberlain
Now I can speak to Parliament and People with authority
On topics one and all, from income tax to foreign policy
My speeches are a marvel of sonority not brevity
And I can make it sound to them like I have genuine empathy
And I can write a bill to take your Civil Rights away from you
With DNA, ID Cards and a database to follow you
In short with legislation that's designed to chafe and monitor
I am the very model of a modern Labour Minister
Chorus
In short with legislation that's designed to chafe and monitor
She is the very model of a modern Labour Minister
In fact when I can understand just what is meant by 'poverty'
When I know more of life than does a novice in a nunnery
And worked instead of reading PPE at University
Then I could do my job with more compassion and propriety
For all my time in Parliament, I'm niggardly and cowardly
I simply feel the Laws of all the land do not apply to me
In short, I am a Stalinist, with motivations sinister
I am the very model of a modern Labour Minister
Chorus
In short, she is a Stalinist, with motivations sinister
She is the very model of a modern Labour Minister
D
Well let's host our blogs in Outer Mongolia then and anonymise our IP addresses.
Iain, like most things, THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU. Labour has no interest in trying to stop you blogging. The government does have a perfectly reasonable interest in preventing the circulation of libellous material - not something you've ever been responsible for, so far as I know.
Please go to my recent post to see vicious defamation from a guy, Crushedbyingsoc, who makes these libel laws necessary.
You should be particulary interested as he was promoted in your book last year, yet I hope never again as he has made up vicious lies about my whole family, including my dead father and patients under my care.
I would be interested to know:
1. Would this guy ever feature in your book again?
and
2. As a member of Blogpower, do you support this type of abuse from members?
Tom,
You have too much faith in what the people in power will use the legislation for!
The use of anti-terror laws on the Icelandic Financial institutions should ring alarm bells.
I find it rather concerning the degree to which we are being subject to sensorship. Does anyone believe the more outlandish campaigns - I did not here the left complain about the Sarah Palin *Stories*: Indeed some notable leftwing contrubutors actively peddled them.
Will this legislation be retrospective by the way?
Ubermouth:
Sounds like a bad experience for you, as it would be for all of us.
However, my personal concern for this sort of legislation is the ease with which it can be abused.
What starts as law with good intention to protect, frequently becomes something used to stifle.
In your case, would the normal laws of libel not have been sufficient? I don't know the intricacies of libel law . . .
Regards
D
Free Speech? What's that?
"But I would hope that even they would in the end see sense. We shall see." That seems unlikely, when was the last time this bunch "saw sense"?
How does the UK intend to control blogs run from non UK servers?
More Stalinist control freakery, Labour just can't help it, what they don't understand they must crush.
Sorry it was the European Parliament, not the Commission...
Justice Minister? She should be looking into why murderers are back on the streets so soon, or why there are guidelines being promulgated to stop kids guilty of knive crimes being punished properly.
Oh, and apologising for her lavishly refurbished new Palace!
The Penguin
Jon Worth, We are both right. The most recent attempt was through the European Parliament, but there have also been initiatives within the European Commission too, I think.
1 - Don't libel people
2 - Remove asap any libelous comments
3 - We live in a fascist country so don't be too surprised by this
4 - Labour is a dead duck anyhow!
Bridget Prentice underestimates British punk sensibilities...
If she tries to push freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of thought underground - then there will be an almighty revolution. A cultural revolution.
It happened before and it can happen again.
This law will probably make it easier to SHAKE OFF mischievious actions with no merits. This being a far more important and likely change than "making it easier" to sue anyone.
Making it harder by injecting some judgement at the get go is the way to go. It is already easy enough as Alex and Dave and others have found out. Whatever the paucity of the grounds.
Last two to threaten me were an allegedly smelly - according to a comment at Manchester Confidential from someone who seemed to have been near him - car campaigner called Sean Corker and a so-called comedian and Lib Dem apologist called Jimmy Cricket.
Interestingly Ian Hislop claimed on R5 recently that privacy actions were taking over as libel actions were increasingly being successfully defended.
What happened to Alex Hilton (which you magnanimously blogged about, to your credit) should be your worry, not the suggested proposals.
If you, or any other blogger can not or will not protect the reputations of people by moderating your comments (and what you yourself write) then that'll be your problem, provided ordinary people are indeed given access to the law.
Hiding behind the fact that most don't currently have access to legal redress, because it's too expensive, is no defence (or shouldn't be). Nor is it fair that those who do not have deep pockets should be able to be harassed by those with deep pockets.
"Mr Blogs plays with himself," may be true but it is for you to prove it. If you can't, it's probably libellous so don't write it. But in Alex's case, a law such as that proposed could have helped him and, indeed, potentially gives bloggers more freedom to publish true but unpalatable articles safe in the knowledge that they won't be crippled by legal fees for simply defending what they have published.
As to the issue of where your site is hosted, that's a red herring. If it can and has been accessed in the UK you can sue in the UK courts. That's the case now and I doubt that'll change.
Would it be retrospective? Highly unlikely.
All Sid Shyster MP would have to do is get one of his mates to write a comment on a blog "Sid Shyster MP is a child molester" then Sid Shyster MP sues for libel.
Bingo. Quids in.
Two entirely different points are being conflated here. the first is whether UK libel law is too draconian, at least in regard to treatment of public figures. This is certainly at least arguable. what is certainly not arguable is that such libel laws as there are should be the preserve of the rich.
What would be an enormous help to freedom of expression might be much harsher treatment of those (Maxwell, Archer, Aitken, Major) who abuse the system to suppress allegations which subsequently turn out to be true. It's no better than fraud
She scares the bejeezus out of me. BBrrrrr shudder shudder.
When rabid libertarian bloggers compare Labour MPs and members to fascists, Mugabe, Stalinists, etc I roll my eyes. When apparently serious professionals such as yourself use such rhetoric I seriously wonder at the state of political commentary.
Jimmy said...
Two entirely different points are being conflated here. the first is whether UK libel law is too draconian, at least in regard to treatment of public figures. This is certainly at least arguable. what is certainly not arguable is that such libel laws as there are should be the preserve of the rich.
What would be an enormous help to freedom of expression might be much harsher treatment of those (Maxwell, Archer, Aitken, Major) who abuse the system to suppress allegations which subsequently turn out to be true. It's no better than fraud
BTW, don't forget Bliar and his WMDs
Cato,
I don't recall any libel proceedings. Did I miss something?
No wonder Gordon Prentice MP is now her ex-husband. He seems quite normal in comparison.
Hi Iain
I don't think they're trying to stop you blogging.
Imagine for a second that you had a big house with a huge white wall on one side. On that wall, people wrote lots of comments, like in Roman times. Then imagine that, on a regular basis, people wrote defamatory comments on the wall. you knew they were writing on the wall, but maybe didn't always remove the comments quickly - by whitewashng over them, or you didn't take reasonable steps to stop those people from writing on your house wall. That's the analogy - you're hosting a big wall on which people can write. You are, literally, publishing our comments. It's fair that you should be held accountable for what's in those comments, just as you are responsible for what's in Total Politics.
I agree that those future measures are somewhat over the top, but as long as bloggers stick to journalistic ethics, I don't see why anyone should be liable for libel.
Blogging is supposed to be professional, like an opinion column in a newspaper. If a blogger feels that he must use four-letter words, insult the character and reputation of others out of malice, then I'd say, why not sue the bastard for libel?
In a way, perhaps, such measures would be good for the blogosphere, as it might improve the tone and put an end to anonymous (and not-so-anonymous) trolls.
@ Werner Patels
"Journalistic ethics"?
What the hell are they?
>>Blogging is supposed to be professional<<
Supposed by whom, Werner ?
There is no professional limitation on freedom of speech - unless you're proposing one ?
Your understanding of libel law seems a little confused too.
>>We are also concerned about the disproportionate cost of defamation proceedings<<
The cost of bringing proceedings, or the cost of defending them ?
I await the consultation paper with some trepidation.
My understanding is that a green paper will be published in the New Year setting out plans to make it easier for people to sue for defamation .....there’s even a suggestion that there could be a small claims court for libel.....opportunities for people with very little means...
> Just what we need, a spate of court cases alomg the lines 'That cow Tracy called me a slag'
The move is bound to be seen as a way of dealing with government irritants such as Guido and to a lesser extent Iain Dale.
> Remember the guy who was fined for selling 'Bollocks to Blair' tee shirts ? It is stone-cold certain that any legislation will in due course be abused in the interests of members of the governing party.
If Labour want to stop me blogging, this is exactly the way to go about it, I guess.
> They will never admit to wanting to stop you - or anyone else - blogging, but if your blog dies out as a consequence of being wrapped up in red tape and crippled by pin-prick lawsuits, they would see it as "a price worth paying"
UBERMOUTH:
One of the virtues of freeedom of expression is that when people express themselves exactly as they wish, they also reveal their character, so that the rest of us can judge what weight - positive or negative - to give to them
Werner: "Blogging is supposed to be professional"
You are of course joking ? Blogging is wonderful because it gives amateurs the opportunity to reach a large audience, and let their ideas sink or swim on their merits. This is also thereason blogging is hated and feared by people whose lives depend on suppression an manipulation of inormation.
Well here's my tuppence worth on the proposed changes to the law - I could be wrong but as i see it:
As it stands Bloggers are not exempt from the libel laws as it stands see here.
And I guess that's just a result of our civil law, any individual who has the resources can raise an action against another - as to the rights and wrongs of buying law, that's another debate.
However comments are in the first instance the responsibility of the individual making them, not the blog owner, and as such a valid defence if the commentator can be identified. Whether the commentator can be identified or not the blog owner or his ISP will be served with a removal order by a complainant, and if not compliant with that, may only then subsequently be sued in lieu of the commentator (Godfrey vs Demon).
As such the only decision a blog owner has to make is whether they want to use moderation or not - this does not make one iota of difference: if a valid email address (or tracked IP address) is associated with a comment then the commenter will be found and sued, and the blog owner served with a removal notice however if anonymous posts are accepted the only action available to a complainant is to serve the blog owner with a removal notice - and only then if it is ignored will the complainant be in a position to sue the blog owner.
So in summary, lawyers get more work serving removal orders, and every blog has only anonymous posts which would be removed if objected to - problem solved Bridget...
Making it easier to sue for libel needn't be a bad thing. At the moment it is very hard for an 'ordinary' person defamed by a newspaper to get any sort of redress, while the rich and powerful are able to use the threat of libel to suppress freedom of expression.
So the corollary needs to be that the legal process for resolving defamation cases should be swifter, cheaper and focussed on achieving apologies and corrections (where appropriate), rather than large financial settlements.
At the same time, there should be some sort of American-style defence of fair comment.
There needs to be some sort of resolution to the question of who is a publisher in an online context. The responsibilities of a blog-owner ought to be proportional to his/her powers. A fair compromise might be that commenters have to register and that a defamed person should pursue a commenter first and a blog-owner should be liable only in aggravated circumstances - where s/he has provoked or encouraged libel, for instance.
We already have the disgraceful situation where individual states in the USA are having to legislate to protect their authors and journalists from our courts. We really need to borrow from the first amendment to the US Constitution "(congress) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press".
The question for David Cameron is whether the Conservatives are really going to do anything about civil liberties, which seem to be disappearing in vast amounts of hot air about human rights.
This is especially interesting in relation to the previous post 'Will Derek Draper Be "Labour's Iain Dale"?'
Bridget's disgusting actions appear to be part of a two pronged attack on subversives and counter-revolutionaries.
Shut down dissent with one hand and raise up a Sith with the other.
This seems to be part of Labour's 'Big Conversation' project i.e. ignore what people think and tell them how evil all other political parties are, while being totally evil themselves.
I'm willing to pledge money to support any blogger who gets dragged into the star chamber.
Think of the fiscal stimulus! Think of the children! Think of the Audi dealers! Mr Dale has a good retail spending habit and a compulsive 'problem' with buying Audis. If Mr Dale's monies get er ... diverted by a court Gord Almighty won't be able to save all the tiny big eyed bunnies and help Mr Lion to lie down with the Lamby Lambs, ohhh noooo! It's true though!!
Support free (or at least cheap) speech!
Fight the Sith!
Save Dale and by association, (in the short to medium term) all the ickle Bunnies!!
"OP. DR. TEOMAN DOĞAN
ESTETİK PLASTİK CERRAHİ UZMANI
estetik,burun estetiği, göğüs estetiği, plastik cerrahi
Kötü bir burun ameliyatı nasıl belli olur? ... etc, ...etc."
Is that post actionable?
Post a Comment