Libel: six options for reform

When Richard Dawkins talked libel to the LibDem conference on Sunday, he was preaching to the converted. The party has already proposed radical change to the law in light of Simon Singh's infamous legal battle with the British Chiropractic Association (BCA).

The LibDem solution is to change the burden of proof -- claimants would have to show a story was false to sue. Currently, the publisher must prove their story is true if they want to use the defence of justification (truth).

Prof Dawkins says British libel laws are stifling scientific debate. When Dr Singh criticised the BCA he might have expected -- welcomed, even -- a robust defence. What he didn't expect was the difficulty and expense of a libel suit, launched before the BCA issued any repost to his criticisms. Libel certainly doesn't encourage debate, and that is unhealthy for science and for society.

So how could the libel law be changed to allow scientists and others more freedom to discuss ideas in public? Here are six options:

1) Un-reverse the burden of proof

Pros: the LibDem solution brings libel into line with other law where one is innocent until proven guilty
Cons: may be politically difficult to put into practice. The same law protects celebs and innocent little old ladies from tabloid smears.

2) Give scientists special privilege

Pros: privilege already exists for MPs and lawyers to allow them to do their jobs. Why not scientists?
Cons: special conditions could make defending yourself against libel even more complicated.

3) Make fair comment unconditional

Pros: fair comment allows critics to give their honest opinions about films, restaurants, politics. The courts already distinguish between opinion pieces and news stories, but there is a condition that you do not pass off as comment allegations of criminal or immoral behaviour. Removing that condition would give everyone free speech as long as the context is opinion.
Cons: could result in blogs becoming unbridled slanging matches.

4) Different rules for different claimants

Pros: already works in the US where companies and people in the public eye must show that a libel was intentional or negligent. Ordinary people get better protection.
Cons: potentially makes libel more complex.

5) Mandatory repost

Pros: by making claimants show they took all reasonable measures to put their side of the case, you would make flaky claims more difficult. Also: the law is supposed to be equitable. Publishers no longer have a special position. In the internet age, anyone can put their case to the public.
Cons: the courts would have to establish what reasonable means in this context.

6) All the above?

Pros: we get free speech.
Cons: bit radical, maybe?

Good journalism from the master

Keith Waterhouse, probably the best writer in journalism of his generation, died earlier this month at 80.

Among his accomplishments was Waterhouse on Newspaper Style, a manual for good writing. Most of what he says there is as valid in the digital age as it was when he wrote it. Here are a few snippets:

• Journalists with flair write in the language of their readers  
• If a news story is dramatic, drama should come out in the telling. It is not enough simply to assure readers that the drama was there  
• Deadline fever encourages taut, crisp writing. The truly awfully written story demands time
• To use outsiders' jargon is to take their own evaluation of themselves on trust  
• An interesting story does not have to open with a war-whoop  
• Despite the invention of the tape recorder, many newspapers have a tin ear for dialogue  
• Few journalists realise that the ground-rules for the human-interest story were laid down in Cassel's Book of Indoor Amusements, 1881  
• It is the tendency of cliches to generalise, approximate or distort