http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14845167

It offers some pragmatic and balanced suggestions about how to improve the law – I particularly like the suggestion about forcing people down the mediation route before litigation, as this would substantially reduce the scope for using financial clout to silence people.

Reading this also prompted me to read up on Eady’s judgment in the Singh case. And having done so, I take back my suggestion that judges usually get it right. The ruling rests on the idea that criticising someone for “happily promoting” something which is “bogus” and based on a lack of evidence implies that they are being consciously dishonest, as opposed to just deluded, or unconcerned about the evidence for what they are promoting. That’s nothing to do with the law – it’s just a perverse interpretation of the facts, betraying a fundamental lack of understanding both of human nature and the nature of scientific evidence.

But individual judges do sometimes get things wrong – that’s why we have appeal courts, and in the UK anyway, the higher the court, the more likely they typically are to consider the fundamental principles of justice at stake. I’m sure Singh will win on appeal.

The weakness in my argument is probably that the two points are linked. The international jurisdiction wouldn’t matter if it weren’t for the fact that the UK appears to offer more protection to the plaintiff than other countries do. Given that the internet has eroded national boundaries from a publication persective, maybe the only solution is global harmonisation of libel laws. But this could be practically impossible to achieve…

There are things that are not libelous under non-UK laws, but if (for example), an American citizen, while physically located in the USA, says something about another American citizen, who is also physically located in the USA, about something that was done in the USA, and says this on a blog that *could be* accessed in the UK — even if it never is, or isn’t until some UK legal professional wants to get paid for a lawsuit — then the UK’s libel laws magically apply, and the US citizen can be punished for saying something in his own country that, in his own country, is protected free speech.

Making the UK’s libel laws apply to every person in the entire world means that the UK is interfering with other nations’ sovereign rights to set their own standards for what is and isn’t libel. It means that the 646 members of the UK parliament, elected by about half a percent of the world’s population, are creating laws that are imposed without consent, and frequently without knowledge, on the remaining 99.5% of the world. It means that Free Speech is reduced to “whatever the UK chooses to allow you to say”. We do not want a few arrogant people to erode liberty worldwide.

Even if Ben’s gloomily cynical view of the motivation of politicians is accurate, I don’t see what interest British politicians have in maintaining London’s status as a global haven for libal suits. Apart from anything, it’s a monstrously inefficient use of the public funds that are spent on our courts and judiciary. That on its own would be a good enough reason for any government to want to limit the international jurisdiction of our libel laws. (The alternative of course would be to see it as a revenue opportunity, charge 25% of any awards to foreigners, and aggressively advertise our courts overseas in the same way as we do our universities…)

I’m less clear on what is wrong with the libel laws themselves – assuming they are used for genuinely domestic cases. We have judges and juries to come to the right answer – and in most cases they seem to get it right. The problem rather is how much it costs to defend an action, which gives a massive advantage to plaintiffs with deep pockets, who can intimidate their victims into giving in. But this is a broader problem that affects all forms of litigation where legal aid is unavailable. Lawyers are just so expensive that the biggest challenge is actually getting in front of a judge in the first place.

If this is an intentional effect, it’s a misfeature. If accidental, it could be a bug. More likely, however (assuming that you’re otherwise fairly satisfied with UK law), it could be called a wart.

Bugs should be fixed, and warts should be removed.

Ben, when you mention a US trial here, I think you’re referring to a scientific experiment and not a court case, but there is a degree of ambiguity.

and I cant remember who said “Democracy is the only system of govenment that gives the people the government that they deserve”

I’ve seen too many people get enthusiastic about one topic, then try to become involved in the politicl side. You’ll find no more effective way of muting criticism than by sucking activists into the politcs & getting them to spread their efforts too thinlyby trying to work the political system from within. Stay out and shout loud.

We have politicians to represent our views, there’s no point in keeping a dog and doing the barking yourself.

“surely crimes are prosecuted according to the laws of the country in which they are committed? How can a person in one country who may criticise someone in a second country be sued in a third? Or is it a case of international law allowing such transfers between certain states?”

Under UK law, if a libel can be read from a computer in the UK, then it is deemed to have been ‘published’ here, and if it has been published in the UK then our jurisdiction can hear the case. Most other jurisdictions in the world take the commonsense approach that the libel is published wherever the defendant uploaded it from. Not us. This is but one of the many reasons why our libel laws drastically need overhauling – the Government needs to stop pretending that the internet never happened.

“the idea that the right to vote gives the public control over how the government acts is like something a baby or a lamb would think”

But would you agree that the right to vote, along with the right to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, etc, at least give us the opportunity to have our say, even if it is ignored? As I said before, the more people take advantage of that opportunity, the harder it is for those in power to ignore us.

Sorry, I meant “Baaa…”

I didn’t see anyone suggest that it’s easy. I can’t speak for anyone else, but the point I was trying to make is that if everyone believes that there’s no point getting invoved and trying to change anything, then nobody will do anything and the situation continues as it is. Of course one individual cannot make a difference – and the fewer people who take the time to try and make their voice heard, the more each of them will have to do to actually make any difference at all. Whereas if everyone did something, however small – sign a petition, talk to their MP, write to the papers – that would make the voting public a little more difficult to ignore. I have a full time job too; I’m also studying at the same time. But there are issues I care about, so I make a little time – maybe an hour a week – to try and do what I can to raise awareness (and no, I didn’t “tour the country” to find a “team” to work with – welcome to the internet). No, it isn’t much, but I think it’s better than doing nothing. Maybe I’m being too idealistic; maybe I haven’t been disappointed enough times to understand how pointless it all is. I can’t help but think though that idealism is probably more productive than cynicism.

I’m not suggesting that if everyone starts a blog then we’ll change the world tomorrow (in fact, looking over the comments I think you were the first one to mention blogging as a tool – where did you get that from?). I agree that true change is slow and difficult to bring about. But surely just saying “it’s too hard, so I won’t do anything” is even less likely to change anything.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, bluntly, shit or get off the pot. If people think things need to change, they should do something about it. If they don’t care enough to, then they shouldn’t moan about it.

In a democracy, you get the politicians who can afford to run for election, and who are selected to run by their party, or who run as an independent with no hope of changing anything. As a bonus, you get whichever one gets the highest absolute number of votes, even if more people voted against them than for them.

And then they get told how to vote on most issues by those holding power in the party.

Perhaps a lot of us should probably get more involved in politics than we are. But the idea that the right to vote gives the public control over how the government acts is like something a baby or a lamb would think.

First, we are told: get involved, you can make a difference

Now we are told: well actually you cannot make a difference unless you have a team

How am I supposed to obtain this team? I have a full time job. Should I tour the country?

One option is a blog. Do you know how many blogs there are out there, often contradicting each other? If two blog contradict, both cannot win the argument. So, the only conclusion is that one must fail. So the message “you can make a difference” is clearly one that does not apply to all, despite the views of scifi writers.

The average readership of most blogs is what. One? Yeah, that is really getting involved.

Look at the huge opposition to the war in Iraq. Did that stop the war? How did women get the vote? By extreme methods. Let us talk about UK slavery. How did that get stopped? By one person writing a blog?

Randi has been campaigning for years. Has he eliminated pseudoscience?

So, let us stop pretending it is easy to change the political situation.

Let us learn from history. History is clear that change occurs but the change is sporadic and exaggerating the role of the every individual is not helpful