I have this morning published another video in my series on what Labour could do almost costlessly now that it is in office. In it, I argue that the UK's libel laws massively limit free speech and proper investigative journalism in this country. That's dangerous for our democracy. Labour needs to change these laws now, and it would cost them nothing.
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
As anybody who's ever published a YouTube video, put something on TikTok, written a blog post, let alone been a journalist knows, in this country there are exceptionally penal libel laws.
You have to be able to prove what you say is right in the UK. A person who complains about what you've said does not have to prove that you're wrong, you have to prove you are right.
The consequence is exceedingly draconian. In the UK, it is very hard to call out corruption because unless you have emphatic proof that somebody is doing something wrong, you can't even speculate on whether that might be happening or not. People quite literally get away with, well, not quite blue murder, but most certainly with things that should not happen as a result of the libel laws in the UK being far too weighted in favour of those with wealth and power who can go to court and bring libel actions against people who are trying to call out what is wrong in society.
Now, most countries in the world don't have libel laws like ours, and they seem to function quite well. For example, the USA does not have libel laws, anything like those in the UK, and so it is possible there to make accusations without having absolute proof, and without the fear of being bankrupted by a libel action.
I'm not calling for a free-for-all and an open day on bringing accusations into the public domain, which would be wholly inappropriate. There must be some limits in place. But the current laws are so biased against fair and open and inquisitive journalism that they have to be wrong. They're there to support the establishment and people within it against the interests of ordinary people and the need for openness to prevent wrongdoing happening.
Labour could change these laws. They could rebalance the system so that there were appropriate checks and balances in place. But fair comment could be raised without the fear of a libel action being brought.
If we value a free press, if we value a free society, if we want to have open debate, we need reformed libel laws. Labour could do that. It will cost them nothing.
Come on Labour, let's do it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Anyone care to invest in my project to teach pigs to fly?
Labour is part of that protected establishment.
Great minds think alike. !!!!
I have been saying this as necessary to confront the dark money and hidden lobby groups.
Starmer is a lawyer (so are many MPs in both parties). Lawyers make money from the daft UK libel laws.
Said laws are also useful for supressing discussion and the exposure of wrong doing (shown to be the case loads of times).
Why would a bunch of lawyers reduce their “profession’s” ability to make money?
They very nature of corruption is to hide its true intent so, as you say, having laws that require a defendant to prove its existence is wholly biased in favour of the claimant. This cannot be right or just.
To prevent a free-for-all of defaming people left right and centre, perhaps we need a counterbalance? I have long argued that we need to criminalise ‘deliberately or recklessly misleading the public’. The burden of proof would be simply to show that the correct facts were easily ascertainable.
It is probable that few prosecutions would be brought under such a law, but as with libel and slander, its main effect would be to make public figures more careful to avoid promoting obvious lies. Climate science would be one clear beneficiary, as would health messaging.
You are right this is very much an issue which needs sorting out. An independent fact checker with powers to issue fines on any individual, agency or business that fails to provide information (accurate) would help. Such a fact checker would itself have to be made democratically accountable to avoid the “Ofshams” we currently have in this country.
Here’s another simple change Scammer & Co could make to improve their fairness credentials (don’t hold your breath!) :-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/12/food-bank-calls-for-end-to-subsidised-dining-for-mps
Carol Cadwalladr exposed the influence of Cambridge Analytica and was pursued through the courts by Aaron Banks. She faces a bill of £1.000,000. Without making a judgement on this particular case, it must deter some journalists from publishing material which could be challenged by vested interests who do not have the public welfare in mind.
If Libel Laws in the UK are so strict, how does the Daily Fail get away with all they print and all that is said on their many podcasts?
Because it costs a lot to bring a libel action
The current libel laws make it very risky for me to publish anything derogatory about filthy-rich-businessman. On the other hand filthy-rich-businessman can publish anything he likes about me because he knows I cannot afford to bring a libel action against him.
We need not only to change the law in the way Richard suggested, but also to make access to libel laws more equal.
More to the point what about the ‘News of the World’ paedophile campaign.
Public disorder and potential for injury or death but nobody held to account
I agree that the libel laws discourage necessary reporting, but some of the UK press is irresponsible.
For example, there are headlines today that are scaremongering about measures to deal with prison overcrowding. It’s too easy.
The Conservative administration announced the problem before the election. The new prisons minister, James Timpson, said recently that in the Netherlands, “they have shut half their prisons not because people are less naughty in Holland,” he told Channel 4. “It’s because they have a different way of sentencing, which is community sentencing so people can stay at home, keep their jobs, keep their homes, keep reading their children bedtime stories, and it means they are far less likely to commit crime again. A custodial sentence is not always the right thing.”
Surely Timpson has a point. Accepted ‘there are no easy solutions’ but one-sided alarming headlines make a difficult job harder than it needs to be.
Obviously dangers cannot be ignored but surely reports – including headlines – could be balanced, so that solutions can be explored rationally.
Some owners, editors and reporters have not served the nation well. Am I silly to imagine that there could be a new offence to discourage this? I have a notion that there should be a big stick. ‘Unlimited fines’ comes to mind.
He has a very good point
Of course prison is sometimes necessary to protect the public, but it very rarely prevents reoffending and might increase it
I taught in a prison about 30 years ago. There were inmates who were functionally illiterate, there weren’t any in my class as I was teaching computing skills, including programming. However I did have some students who clearly had severe psychological problems. I don’t think prison did much for either group. On the other hand society really ought to do something for them. In some cases this may include incarceration, but not in the sort if prison I taught in.
From what I have heard prisons have not improved since then; if anything they have got worse.