British libel law is twisted
British libel law is not working, stifles free speech, yet continues to be practiced. To begin with, the law requires the defendant to prove the truth of their statement -- instead of requiring the defamed to prove it false. You can see where this would lead. Anyone who doesn't like what you say and just sue you for libel -- even if they expect you to win, you still lose, as in the case of Simon Singh. The law considers the defendant guilty, until proven innocent. Further, the law can be used to settle scores in foreign countries. For instance, if a magazine article is published in Canada that reflects negatively on an individual -- said individual could sue in British courts for libel, if the magazine was made available for sale in England -- which only requires online access.
It's widely acknowledged that British libel laws stifle free speech. The Americans are considering a bill that would make British judgments on libel cases unenforceable in the US -- and the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled against it. So why hasn't it changed? Libel laws, especially that of British design, serves the rich primarily -- be they individuals or companies. They have the means to wield it as a tool to stifle free speech and curb criticism. Politicians, being individuals with the means to wield the libel tool, see no point in changing what clearly works in their favour.
Comments
Post a Comment