Simon Singh and Libel Law in the UK

In our law lectures at Winchester University we are constantly being reminded that defaming someone is dangerous if you do not have a defence. If something we as journalists publish could damage someone's reputation then we have libeled them. Which is fine. Because hopefully what we wrote will have been either completely true and justifiable (i.e. we can prove it), fair comment (clearly just an expressed opinion) or have qualified privilege (quoted from a court of law or session of parliament). The United Kingdom's libel laws are particularly strict and we're being trained to spot potential pitfalls in everything we write.

It seems remarkable that science writer Simon Singh is standing up and putting his reputation on the line to challenge libel laws regarding comments he made about the British Chiropractic Association. This is a fascinating case, English law is created almost entirely by precedents, if he wins then it could cause great changes in the way libel law is enacted, albeit specifically in the field of science and research.




In 2008 he wrote an article questioning some chiropractic beliefs, such as asthma, ear infections and other childhood ailments could all be cured by back adjustments. He accused the BCA of promoting 'bogus treatments' and hey presto lawsuit. They chose to sue Singh as an individual rather than the Guardian that published the article. And Singh chose to fight. He sums up the case well himself here and Allen Green writes an excellent blog that keeps up with all the latest developments.

Singh is trying to use the defence that his statement was fair comment and despite not having much initial luck (it was initially ruled he had made a factual statement) has just been granted an appeal. His case has drawn a huge amount of attention that really can't be giving the BCA good publicity, I wonder if perhaps they have spectacularly shot themselves in the foot here.

Importantly a charity has started a campaign to reform libel law that already has many people involved, you can show your support by signing a petition here.

As my lecturer has said: almost every good piece of journalism is defaming somebody. But why take the time and expense to do investigative journalism to expose wrong doing or problems in society when you'll more than likely just be sued for doing so? Much easier to just throw another celebrity gossip story onto the front page.

Singh sums it up wonderfully: "This highlights the dreadful problem in the English libel system. Even large publishers are intimidated by the huge expense of fighting a legal battle. This means that articles that should be defended are dropped, and articles that should be written are shelved before they are even published because of potential libel action."

I wish him the very best of luck.

Berlusconi

The lowly but heroic journalist tracking down the truth and revealing it to the public, shining a light into the darkest corners of society and shouting to the rest of us "Look! Look what I've found!" It's a naive, romantic idea but I love it, I think we all do.

Perhaps the most applaudable role of the journalist is that of the white blood cell, when those in authority abuse their power or make a mistake the media point it out and society as a whole can only benefit from this. Checks and balances.

I think this is why I've been so interested in the rumours and accusations that have been flying through the Italian press about Silvio Berlusconi. Regardless of whether he is guilty of any wrong doing or not, he's running a country and his laundry should be whiter than white when the press snoops through it. It can only be a good thing that he is subject to the same laws and now the same consequences as any of his citizens.




It's doubly important because Berlusconi is a media mogul himself and that's a dangerous thing. I don't personally believe someone should have the ability to set the news agenda and then profit from it. Men like Berlusconi and Rupert Murdoch have the power to influence governments, we should constantly be looking at them and asking ourselves what are their motivations? Is what they are doing right? Any change in law that makes them more accountable is a breath of fresh air.

And it's great to see that the Italian press (and specifically the publications not owned by Berlusconi) are doing well from the whole fiasco as well.