New libel laws to protect freedom of the Press.

I couldn't see this posted anywhere on the forum.

New libel laws to protect freedom of the Press

By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 5:39 AM on 10th July 2010
Comments (8) Add to My Stories

Freedom of Speech: Lord McNally said investigative journalists and scientists needed to be able to do their work without fear of unfounded, lengthy and costly defamation and libel cases

Ministers yesterday promised new libel laws to loosen the grip of the courts on the work of academics, science authors and investigative journalists.
They said current law is restricting freedom of expression and threatening researchers with unjust and costly court cases.

The new legislation will also tackle 'libel tourism', the use of British courts to silence critics of the rich and powerful around the world.

The pledge by Justice Minister Lord McNally came during a Lords debate on a Private Member's Bill.
He said: 'We need investigative journalism and scientific research to be able to flourish without fear of unfounded, lengthy and costly defamation and libel cases. We want to focus on ensuring a right and a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation.'

The Defamation Bill will be put before Parliament next year. It may also consider consider fees charged by lawyers in no-win no-fee libel cases.
It follows rising concern among scientists, academics and publishers at restrictive decisions of British libel judges.

In one recent case, a science writer found himself held to have libelled chiropractors after he wrote about 'bogus treatments' in a newspaper article.
The case against journalist Simon Singh was ultimately thrown out by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, who said it threatened to turn the courts into an 'Orwellian Ministry of Truth'.

Another case saw a British judge order all copies of a book by a Californian investigator on Saudi financing of terrorism be pulped - even though it had never been published in this country.
The case encouraged the biggest U.S. states, including California, to bring in libel tourism laws to ensure they could counter the orders of judges in London.

Lord McNally's announcement was swiftly welcomed by campaigners for reform.

John Kampfner, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, said: 'Today the Government listened to the 52,000 people who backed the campaign to redesign our libel laws and have committed, for the first time in a century, to wholesale reform.
'Obviously we'll need to see how bold the Government will be - they must stop libel tourism, cut the obscene legal costs involved and give cast-iron protections to free speech.'

Liberal Democrat Lord Lester of Herne Hill said that, while listening to the minister, he had 'wondered if I'm alive at all or whether I'm in Heaven, because I never thought to hear a reply of that kind'.

The Government had indicated an 'open-mindedness for reform, a willingness to get on, a willingness to listen', he said.
The Bill was given an unopposed second reading.

Jonathan Heawood, the director of libel reform group English PEN, said afterwards: 'Until the Libel Reform Bill is actually passed, the right to free speech in this country will be conditional on writers or scientists having deep pockets or a willingness to fight for years through the courts.
'It should no longer be a matter for judges but Parliamentarians should decide on how we balance free expression and reputation.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293469/New-laws-protect-freedom-Press.html

why would anyone red stripe this?

Marky wrote:why would anyone red stripe this?

God knows, maybe someone is afraid of libel reform? Not that I think it's the libel laws that are stopping investigative journalism in the Madeleine case or that libel reform will suddenly mean we'll see less biased reporting - you can legislate about what can be said in the press, but you can't legislate about lazy, incompetent, 'taking sides' journalism.

I don't think my red-striping has anything to do with the above article.

mumbles wrote:I don't think my red-striping has anything to do with the above article.

If nothing to do with the article, then why red-stripe? Aren't some people weird? Not to worry, I green-striped you, as did someone else before me.

And I will stick one on too, to balance it out.

Me too

Iv"e just green striped you too and suspect it is because of your faith in Deborah. I commented on the jimuck/
gravylady argument on his thread and how this was debasing the Forum. A little later on, the Thread was locked
but today it is back with a vengeance and I"ve had one of my rep points taken away,not hard to guess by whom.

Whoever it was should have owned up though, are we not allowed a difference of opinion without repercussion?

Dimsie wrote:

mumbles wrote:I don't think my red-striping has anything to do with the above article.

If nothing to do with the article, then why red-stripe? Aren't some people weird? Not to worry, I green-striped you, as did someone else before me.

Hi Dimsie

Panda is correct in her assumption.

Since I began updating the forum on Debbie's walk - I have been red striped continuously.

Pretty pathetic really - but I guess little things please little minds.

My thanks to those trying to redress the balance.

I've gien a green one too.

I wonder what libel reform means for the PCC.
True libel reform and freedom of the press ought to mean getting rid of it.
You shouldn't be allowed to complain and collect because the papers called you a basic insult like "idiot" or something like that.
Accusations like "pedophile" or even "thief" are different because they are specific.