abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

17 Apr 2013

Author:
Simon Singh, Guardian [UK]

Why libel reform is needed to stop companies bullying their critics [UK]

[There were] manifesto pledges from all three parties…[which] led to a defamation bill…However, with victory in sight…Sir Edward Garnier MP…Garnier…submitted an 11th-hour amendment, which was adopted by the government and has stripped the bill of two of its important elements. First, there was the widely supported measure to stop companies that deliver public services from bullying and gagging their critics. Second, there was a growing consensus that there should be restrictions on the ability of companies to sue for libel by making them demonstrate actual or likely financial harm before trying to silence criticism. Both these proposals…have now been abandoned…[T]he government is ignoring the advice of the joint scrutiny committee on the draft defamation bill…which stated: "It is unacceptable that corporations are able to silence critical reporting by threatening or starting libel claims which they know the publisher cannot afford to defend and where there is no realistic prospect of serious financial loss."