I was reading a column over on the Telegraph website by Simon Singh with great interest, as what he proposes, and for which he has set up a lobbying group to pressure parliament into instigating, would have serious repercussions for the way our political movement in the future. You can get the details of the proposals here: 

He starts his article with a seemingly sensible argument, based upon his own experience in being taken to court for an article published:

On Tuesday morning I will appear at the Court of Appeal in the latest round of a libel battle that has already lasted almost two years, and which could easily continue for another two years. It has cost me more than £100,000 in legal fees and this could double before we reach a final judgment. What did I write that was so terrible? I published a newspaper article raising concerns about chiropractors who use spinal manipulation to treat children for conditions such as colic, ear infections and asthma. I thought that it was important that parents were aware of the shortage of evidence surrounding such treatments, but the British Chiropractic Association disagreed and sued me personally for libel.

One can see the problem, which he himself goes on to explain. Essentially, any wealthy person, corporation, company or public body can financially intimidate a writer into retracting or suppressing a potentially true statement for fear of bankruptcy. As Singh goes on to state, in 2005, the Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz sued the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld for publishing Funding Evil, which exposed how terrorism is financed. She withdrew and settled out of court, as the potential fine for being found guilty would have been astronomical – and we all know how British courts favour “the religion of peace”. The fact he brought the case to a London court of all the places in the world speaks volumes.

Singh does, however, somewhat overstate his case, which made me very suspicious. The people he defends are always “of the highest integrity”, whereas his enemies are “Eastern European oligarchs, Saudi billionaires and giant corporations who want to silence criticism”. But the fact he states that newspapers and journalists are victims of oppression is somewhat laughable. Newspapers have enormous financial resources at their disposal. They also have a penchant for lying.

Several of Singh’s recommendations would tip the legal balance even more severely in favour of newspapers: “requiring the claimant to demonstrate damage and falsity” puts the onus on the victim of defamation and directly goes against Magna Carta. It is trial by newspaper, where those attacked have no hearing. His proposed damages cap of £10,000 is no deterrent to the politically biased media moguls, who would be able to defame politicians at will, free from any real consequence. His last recommendation is again dubious: “Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they can prove malicious falsehood.” This means that journalists could lie about any large business, forcing corporations to suck up to media moguls like Rupert Murdoch. Businesses that failed to do so could face a propaganda war that would finish them.

Let’s just suppose that (to take a hypothetical case purely at random), the daily newspaper of a media mogul publishes an article that states that the leader of a political party is an anti-Semitic Nazi and that his two pet Rottweilers are called, say, Anne and Frank in the run-up to an election. The newspaper has unlimited resources at its disposal to keep the leader dangling in the courts for years, slowly sapping his money. If, at some point, the newspaper is found guilty, they would receive a £10,000 fine under Singh’s proposals, which is probably the bank interest a media mogul’s money makes in a minute. But as the courts would have only the political leader, his family and friends’ words that the dogs were not called Anne and Frank, there would never be enough evidence to convict the newspaper, as the onus of proof would be on the libel victim. In any case, the damage to both him and the party would be done and democracy undermined.

Simon Singh is right when he says the libel law needs changing. He is right that the libel courts favour those with the most money, but this includes those rags of untruth people read on a daily basis. At the moment, individuals are at the mercy of the newspapers – just ask Nick Griffin – and laws need to come in to make sure that deliberate falsehoods are punished. The courts should be there for everyone, not just those with money. I’ll be keeping an eye on how this pans out; I’ve a feeling the media moguls will be lending their weight to Singh’s proposed reforms.