On the face of it, having a law against libel seems a sensible idea. You shouldn’t be allowed to go around damaging people’s reputation by writing things like “Mr X is an arsonist” or “Ms Y is addicted to cocaine” just because you feel like it. And if you do write or say such things, it seems fair that Mr X or Ms Y should have the right to challenge you in court and receive financial compensation from you.
But as the Libel Reform Campaign has been pointing out, libel law in England is being abused by large corporations and organisations to stifle debate about important issues. According to the Libel Reform Campaign
Freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them.
The law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers that London has become known as the libel capital of the world. The rich and powerful bring cases to London on the flimsiest grounds (libel tourism), because they know that 90% of cases are won by claimants. Libel laws intended to protect individual reputation are being exploited to suppress fair comment and criticism.
When science writer Simon Singh criticised the effectiveness of treatments promoted by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), they responded not by citing evidence of the effectiveness of the treatments in question, but by suing Singh for libel claiming that his comments had damaged their reputation. Happily, Singh has recently won a major victory in the High Court with an important ruling in his favour, but the BCA have not yet decided to drop their case.
There are a number of reasons why I am concerned about libel law reform. I am keen to defend the principle of free speech, which appears to be subverted by the way libel law is currently applied in this country. I feel an affinity with people like Simon Singh who write about science. As a technical writer, I write explanations of technology products for a living. Like science writers, technical writers need to find a way to bridge the gap between the way a phenomenon or a product actually behaves, and the mental model of that behaviour that our readers may have.
But I also have a personal worry too. As a self-appointed technical writing maven, I have been known to be critical of certain products. If libel law is not reformed, it’s possible that the next time I write that automatic numbering in a certain well-known word processing application doesn’t always work exactly as advertised, the vendor in question may respond not by ignoring me (which is what usually happens), or by referring me to a knowledge base article that isn’t really relevant, but by taking me to court for damaging their reputation!
All three of the major political parties fighting the current UK general election have pledged to reform libel laws in the next parliament, and it is up to us, as UK citizens, to make sure that whichever party forms the next government actually carries out that promise. Please sign the Libel Reform Campaign’s petition as a first step.
