When I was recently in Cambodia, for the first time in my life I was afraid to write something on my blog. I wanted to tell everyone about the dislocation of hundreds of families from their sites along the Siem Reap River, but I realised my blog was a public forum, and I could get into trouble if someone took offence at what I wrote. Cambodia is not a country with free speech. And so, when I came back home, I started to look more seriously at the emails and Facebook postings I had been receiving about reforming Britain’s libel laws. I became one of the 60,000 people who signed a petition urging the government to stand behind their manifesto claims to bring forward a new, significantly reformed Defamation Bill giving British citizens the freedom of speech they believe they have.
Back in May, we heard that libel reform was going to be on the agenda of the new government. I wrote happily about it here. But today, I sat in on a forum in Parliament where representatives from English PEN, Index, and Sense about Science, explained why the present bill before Parliament is, although an appreciated step forward, not nearly comprehensive enough. Their points were corroborated by a series of writers, scientists, bloggers, and lawyers who themselves have been the target of libel suits, many brought by corporations to stifle criticism made in the public interest. Here are some of the points made:
The consumer magazine, Which?, is often targeted and says that corporations often use libel suits as reputation management, the way they might use pr.
Novels have been pulled by publishers because individuals have threatened to sue the author, claiming a character too closely resembles them (one claimed the charge was based on the use of a specific pair of red shoes). The result of these claims is that publishers are taking even fewer risks with what they publish. This has now just become censorship with a different face.
Nature Magazine claims that it routinely decides not to publish good and important articles because the risk of libel action is too great, too costly.
The website Mumsnet has had to remove debates about baby products and medical care because of the threat of legal action.
It was noted that even if you do successfully fight the case brought against you, the cost of that fight will be 18 months of your life and the price of a house in legal fees.
Dave Gorman asserted that people are afraid to speak, afraid to criticise, afraid to write and I realised that I, myself, had fallen into that trap, too. I censor myself, deciding it isn’t worth the hassle. I certainly did it in Cambodia, and I must admit, I do it here as well — and that was before I really understood the limits to the protection the British government affords me.
 |
| Dara O Briain outside No 10 Downing Street |
 |
| Brian Cox after delivering the Petition to No 10 |
We talk about the cornerstones of democracy. We toss the word “freedom” around as if it was a frisbie. But freedom of speech is, perhaps, the most vital freedom within a democracy, and it is one that we too blithely believe we really have. Parliament has made some strides in securing this freedom for us in the Defamation Bill it is now considering. But this is a bill without teeth. More needs to be done. This affects us all. For more information, please go here.
Speech Found
Wooden parliamentary walls offer privileges
that white paper, blue screens do not.
Criticism…questioning…agreeing to disagree:
civilized, reasonable concepts we teach our children,
then punish them for voicing once they’re old.
There is no thought without speech.
There is no progress without thought.
While some fight for their right to read and write,
others boast of rights they only think they have.
Those cages barring birdsong can be invisible, too.
Recent Comments