By their attitude to press freedom ye shall know them ...
There is a balance to be struck between the imperative need for a democratic society to allow free speech and giving people who have been the subject of lies and defamation to take action to protect their reputation.
The press in Britain is not perfect - by God they're not - but if you ask me to name what sort of press would be worse than the one we have now I'd answer any press accountable to the government.
A pretty good test of how strongly committed to democracy someone involved in politics is where they seek to strike that balance between press freedom on the one hand and regulation and restraint on the other.
An indicator of how strong Britain's libel laws are compared to those elsewhere is the fact that we have had "libel tourism" in which wealthy companies or people from around the world who are trying to take legal action against criticism which they don't like tend to see if the words they object to have been published in Britain, and if so bring their libel action here. Libel tourism has not been quite so common in British courts since early 2014 following a couple of court judgements and a piece of legislation designed to stop it, which I am about to describe, but it has been enough of a feature over recent years to be a pretty good indication that UK libel laws are
1) some of the strictest in the world, and
2) very possibly too strict, getting that balance wrong.
I was pleased when the coalition government introduced a Defamation bill designed to make Britain's libel laws less of a threat to those who are only expressing legitimate opinion.
"Are we really threatening the press with more regulation because they printed a story we didn’t like? This is not ok"
John Woodcock also drew some of the same parallels between Corbyn and Trump as I did above, adding
"It's horrible seeing America’s media debased in this way by Donald Trump and we shouldn’t accept it here either.
If you think it might be ok to threaten newspapers with more regulation after they print a story you don’t like, please read Why Democracies Die, new book on the parallels between Trump and how other countries slipped into authoritarianism."
I don't often quote Labour MPs and am not the greatest fan of John Woodcock but he's got Jeremy Corbyn bang to rights there. I am genuinely scared, not for myself but for my children's future, of how much damage to democracy and free speech in Britain a Corbyn government could do if they were ever elected.
The press in Britain is not perfect - by God they're not - but if you ask me to name what sort of press would be worse than the one we have now I'd answer any press accountable to the government.
A pretty good test of how strongly committed to democracy someone involved in politics is where they seek to strike that balance between press freedom on the one hand and regulation and restraint on the other.
An indicator of how strong Britain's libel laws are compared to those elsewhere is the fact that we have had "libel tourism" in which wealthy companies or people from around the world who are trying to take legal action against criticism which they don't like tend to see if the words they object to have been published in Britain, and if so bring their libel action here. Libel tourism has not been quite so common in British courts since early 2014 following a couple of court judgements and a piece of legislation designed to stop it, which I am about to describe, but it has been enough of a feature over recent years to be a pretty good indication that UK libel laws are
1) some of the strictest in the world, and
2) very possibly too strict, getting that balance wrong.
I was pleased when the coalition government introduced a Defamation bill designed to make Britain's libel laws less of a threat to those who are only expressing legitimate opinion.
The Defamation Act 2013 which came into effect at the start of the following year introduced a new "serious harm threshold" designed to help people understand when claims should be brought and discourage the waste of everyone's time and money on trivial or vexatious libel cases.
Ministers hoped that this legislation would reverse "the chilling effect" previous libel laws have had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate.
The then justice minister Shailesh Vara said that Journalists, scientists and academics have faced unfair legal threats for fairly criticising a company, person or product in the past. He added that
"As a result of these new laws, anyone expressing views and engaging in public debate can do so in the knowledge that the law offers them stronger protection against unjust and unfair threats of legal action.
"These laws coming into force represent the end of a long and hard-fought battle to ensure a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and people's ability to protect their reputation."
That Defamation Act contained a series of measures, including protection for scientists and academics publishing peer-reviewed material in scientific and academic journals, and introduced a defence for those publishing material that they reasonably believe is in the public interest. It also required people who do not live in Europe and are trying to bring a defamation action in a British court to demonstrate that the court concerned is the most appropriate place to bring the action.
Now compare and contrast with the attitude of the present leadership of the Labour party to press criticism.
Until I learned of the threats against the press issued by Jeremy Corbyn today I was inclined to think that the story of Jeremy Corbyn's contacts with Eastern Bloc agents was merely yet another indication of his bad judgement - and probably nothing like as serious as his invitation to convicted IRA terrorists to visit the House of Commons just after the Brighton bomb, although I do agree with an article in the Guardian by Matthew d'Ancona, in which he argued that the worst response to the story of Corbyn's meetings with a Czech spy during the cold war is indifference.
But the reaction of the Labour leader and some of his acolytes on this issue is actually more worrying than the spy story itself - we already knew that he had met a lot of seriously bad guys, but threatening the press because you don't like what they have written - and for all the attempt to present his attack on the press as a call for higher press standards, that is what is happening - is new.
Mr Corbyn has a lot more in common with Donald J Trump than the followers of either might be ready to believe and one of the pages he seems to be taking straight out of the Trump playbook is attacking the media on Twitter (and elsewhere.)
Corbyn issued statements today saying that the espionage allegations show that the press is worried about the possible election of a Labour government and adds "They're right to be."
He tweeted that
"In the last few days The Sun, The Mail, The Telegraph and The Express have gone a little bit James Bond. We've got news for the billionaire, tax exile press barons: Change is coming"
Even Labour MPs were concerned by this, with John Woodcock, MP for Barrow, replying
Now compare and contrast with the attitude of the present leadership of the Labour party to press criticism.
Until I learned of the threats against the press issued by Jeremy Corbyn today I was inclined to think that the story of Jeremy Corbyn's contacts with Eastern Bloc agents was merely yet another indication of his bad judgement - and probably nothing like as serious as his invitation to convicted IRA terrorists to visit the House of Commons just after the Brighton bomb, although I do agree with an article in the Guardian by Matthew d'Ancona, in which he argued that the worst response to the story of Corbyn's meetings with a Czech spy during the cold war is indifference.
But the reaction of the Labour leader and some of his acolytes on this issue is actually more worrying than the spy story itself - we already knew that he had met a lot of seriously bad guys, but threatening the press because you don't like what they have written - and for all the attempt to present his attack on the press as a call for higher press standards, that is what is happening - is new.
Mr Corbyn has a lot more in common with Donald J Trump than the followers of either might be ready to believe and one of the pages he seems to be taking straight out of the Trump playbook is attacking the media on Twitter (and elsewhere.)
Corbyn issued statements today saying that the espionage allegations show that the press is worried about the possible election of a Labour government and adds "They're right to be."
He tweeted that
"In the last few days The Sun, The Mail, The Telegraph and The Express have gone a little bit James Bond. We've got news for the billionaire, tax exile press barons: Change is coming"
"Are we really threatening the press with more regulation because they printed a story we didn’t like? This is not ok"
John Woodcock also drew some of the same parallels between Corbyn and Trump as I did above, adding
"It's horrible seeing America’s media debased in this way by Donald Trump and we shouldn’t accept it here either.
If you think it might be ok to threaten newspapers with more regulation after they print a story you don’t like, please read Why Democracies Die, new book on the parallels between Trump and how other countries slipped into authoritarianism."
I don't often quote Labour MPs and am not the greatest fan of John Woodcock but he's got Jeremy Corbyn bang to rights there. I am genuinely scared, not for myself but for my children's future, of how much damage to democracy and free speech in Britain a Corbyn government could do if they were ever elected.
Comments