Support libel-law reform campaign

Author Simon Singh has spent £100,000 defending a libel action under our notoriously archaic libel laws, which are unjust, often against the public interest and have been internationally criticised. The case relates to him being sued by British Chiropractic Association for writing a newspaper article that questioned some of the claims of chiropractors, and now he is heading a campaign to reform these laws, and needs 100,000 signatures.

Although this campaign was sparked by this particular case, I believe that it is in the interests of all writers, critics and journalists to support reform because the right of freedom of speech applies to us all. The campaign states that freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them.

The law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers that London has become known as the libel capital of the world. Rich and powerful foreigners bring cases to London on the flimsiest grounds (libel tourism), because they know that 90 per cent of cases are won by claimants. Libel laws intended to protect individual reputation are being exploited to suppress fair comment and criticism.

The cost of a libel trial is often in excess of £1 million and 140 times more expensive than libel cases in mainland Europe; publishers (and individual journalists, authors, academics, performers and blog-writers) cannot risk such extortionate costs, which means that they are forced to back down, withdraw and apologise for material they believe is true, fair and important to the public.

The English PEN/Index on Censorship report has shown that there is an urgent need to amend the law to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence. Sense About Science has shown that the threat of libel action leads to self-censorship in scientific and medical writing.

If you'd like to help, then read and sign the petition now!

Author Simon Singh has spent £100,000 defending a libel action under our notoriously archaic libel laws, which are unjust, often against the public interest and have been internationally criticised. The case relates to him being sued by British Chiropractic Association for writing a newspaper article that questioned some of the claims of chiropractors, and now he is heading a campaign to reform these laws, and needs 100,000 signatures.

Although this campaign was sparked by this particular case, I believe that it is in the interests of all writers, critics and journalists to support reform because the right of freedom of speech applies to us all. The campaign states that freedom to criticise and question, in strong terms and without malice, is the cornerstone of argument and debate, whether in scholarly journals, on websites, in newspapers or elsewhere. Our current libel laws inhibit debate and stifle free expression. They discourage writers from tackling important subjects and thereby deny us the right to read about them.

The law is so biased towards claimants and so hostile to writers that London has become known as the libel capital of the world. Rich and powerful foreigners bring cases to London on the flimsiest grounds (libel tourism), because they know that 90 per cent of cases are won by claimants. Libel laws intended to protect individual reputation are being exploited to suppress fair comment and criticism.

The cost of a libel trial is often in excess of £1 million and 140 times more expensive than libel cases in mainland Europe; publishers (and individual journalists, authors, academics, performers and blog-writers) cannot risk such extortionate costs, which means that they are forced to back down, withdraw and apologise for material they believe is true, fair and important to the public.

The English PEN/Index on Censorship report has shown that there is an urgent need to amend the law to provide a stronger, wider and more accessible public interest defence. Sense About Science has shown that the threat of libel action leads to self-censorship in scientific and medical writing.

If you'd like to help, then read and sign the petition now!