“Libel Law Should Protect the Public, Not the Powerful”
Dan Hind, author of The Threat to Reason and the forthcoming The Return of the Public, has launched a renewed offensive against Britain's "absurdly" one-sided libel legislation for the Guardian's "Comment is Free" ...
Hind laments the pernicious yet legally acceptable intrusion into the petty affairs of private individuals, whilst matters of the most pressing economic and political public interest are prevented from reaching nationwide distribution.
Drawing on his wealth of experience with libel laws since publishing Fast Food Nation in 2001, Hind lays out why the odds are stacked against the release of sensitive information:
It turns out that prior publication is no defence. Nor does the plaintiff in a libel case have to prove that the defendant was being malicious or reckless. The plaintiff doesn't even have to prove that a claim is untrue. The defendant must be able to establish in court that a claim is true. And he or she has to do this with primary sources—sworn witness statements, testimony in court. The game is rigged to make it all but impossible to say anything substantial about any powerful individual or institution without running eye-watering risks.
As well as legal issues, Hind also emphasises the economic barriers to the free distribution of information:
Books that seek to expose the crimes of the powerful are significantly more expensive and risky than books that praise them. If you are wondering why we know so little about the offshore system, consider the libel laws. If you want to know why we know so little about systemic corruption in the financial and political elite, ditto.
The net result of these economic and legal restrictions is that the national media is brimming with "small infirmities, evasions and betrayals of intimate life," whereas the real secrets, the stories that really matter, rarely hit the newsstands without provoking a hard fought and dangerous legal challenge.
Visit the Guardian to read the article in full.
