Declan Ganley again

This is a little hard to credit but, apparently, Declan Ganley of Libertas fame (or infamy) "Declan Ganley in what is thought to be one of the first libel actions taken by an Irish person over comments made on social media sites".

The blogger in question, Kevin Barrington, has apologized and made a substantial donation to the Poor Clares.

Mr Tweed [Mr Ganley's lawyer] said Mr Ganley was used to criticism but the comments made were “grossly offensive and personal”. “He was called the most outrageous things,” he said.

This is a little worrying when I recall what I said about Mr Ganley here, here, here and here. There are also a few less than complimentary postings by the Boss.

Hmm. Anyone knows a good libel defence lawyer?

Statements

I fully intend to do a day's blogging, just as soon as I sorted out some aspects of that difficult concept called life (not all of it, just some). However, here are a couple of preliminary statements:

On UKIP and today's by-elections in Croydon North, Rotherham and Middlesborough (on which I shall write later):

As UKIP's co-founder and the first person to be purged from that party I would be delighted if UKIP could finally achieve the results it ought to achieve in the current political climate, no matter how low the turn-out might be. However, past experience tells one that results rarely live up to predictions and it might, on the whole, be better to wait for those results before celebrating or predicting (yet again) that the political scene is about to change. 

On the forthcoming report from Lord Leveson:

Who didn't know that the purpose of the exercise was to recommend legislation that would introduce state control of the media? Then again, such legislation will  have to pass through two Chambers in Parliament and is likely to get bogged down in both of them, thus ensuring that Parliamentary time is taken up by this preposterous bit of legislation. 

The assumption that this is going to be a spectacularly new departure for the British media, which is, allegedly free to publish what it likes at the moment ignores our still unreformed libel laws that control journalism to a far greater extent than most people realize. Suffice it to say that in the US they had to pass legislation to protect the right of American authors to publish certain information in their country and not be hassled by British courts.

Finally, as a blogger, I find it hard not to laugh at the travails of the MSM and not to hope that any legislation that comes out of the Leveson report might finally encourage the British public to turn to the genuinely free part of the media. 

More later, after I have given the benefit of my opinions to the listeners of the BBC Russian Service.

How shameful

I was trying to find the latest news on the Russian ships trapped in the ice in the Okhotsk Sea (the Boss has been following the saga in detail on EURef) and saw that the most up-to-date story was was from Kyiv Post. I clicked on it and found this

The Kyiv Post, effective Dec. 14, 2010, is blocking access to all web traffic originating from the United Kingdom in protest of the draconian libel laws there that hinder legitimate free speech and threaten the work of independent journalists, authors, scientists and others worldwide. In a phenomenon known as “libel tourism,” rich and powerful plaintiffs file lawsuits in London – “the libel capital of the world” – to exploit laws stacked in their favor, stifling journalism and threatening news organizations and others with costly lawsuits.

If you have comments about the Kyiv Post ban, please address them to letters@kyivpost.com and include your name, city of residence and contact telephone number for verification.

Well I could come up with a few tu quoque comments but what's the use? They are right.

Plans for the day

Actually, I am running a little late not least because the internet connection is slower than it ought to be. But I plan to go to Milton Keynes and try my hand at some live-blogging from the UKIP Spring Conference. Might work or it might not be interesting enough.

In the meantime, let me call my readers' attention to this report by the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sports Committee: Press standards, privacy and libel. I am reading it and there will be a full posting on the subject. However, I found this very paragraph from the Summary of particular interest:

We discuss the damage 'libel tourists' have caused to the UK's reputation as a country which protects free speech and freedom of expression, especially in the United States, where a number of states have enacted legislation to protect their citizens from the enforcement of libel settlements made in foreign jurisdictions. We also comment on bills currently before the US Congress which are designed to afford similar protections. We conclude that it is a humiliation for our system that the US legislators should feel the need to take steps to protect freedom of speech from what are seen as unreasonable incursions by our courts. We note that neither the Lord Chancellor nor his officials have sought to discuss the matter with their US counterparts, and urge that such discussions should take place as soon as possible. We further suggest that, in cases where the UK is not the primary domicile or place of business of the claimant or defendant, the claimant should face additional hurdles before being allowed to bring a case.

I am looking forward to reading why the Committee thinks that it is "a humiliation for our system that the US legislators should feel the need to take steps to protect freedom of speech from what are seen as unreasonable incursions by our courts". The reference, I assume, is to the various states passing what is known as Rachel's Law after Rachel Ehrenfeld who started the process when an English libel court found against her for some well documented statements she made in a book that was not even published in this country after her "victim", who does not live in this country, sued. (Full disclosure: Rachel is a good friend and I have followed the case here and on EUReferendum in some detail.)

As I pointed out recently, the Lord Chancellor has set up a Working Group to examine this country's libel laws and to suggest possible reforms. Of course, nothing much has been heard of it since that statement and it is, probably, time to ask a few questions about the progress of the examination.

Meanwhile, other countries might well decide to adopt their version of Rachel's Law. A loyal reader of this blog drew my attention to this piece on EUObserver: Denmark wants Brussels to stop UK Mohammed cartoon lawsuit.

This is not, as our friends on the other side of the Pond, the right way to go about it. For one thing, it consolidates the position of the European Commission as a body that can overrule legal cases and legal processes within member states, hardly a satisfactory position if you believe in an independent judiciary. For another, it is unlikely to work as the Commission tends to believe in legal and political integration at the strongest level.

If the Danish Minister of Justice really does believe that:

But it would be taking it to the extreme if a UK court could rule against the Danish media and then require compensation and court costs to be paid

then Denmark had better start thinking of its own version of Rachel's Law. I am sure Dr Ehrenfeld would agree to be a consultant.

They have noticed the problem

It would appear that the powers that be have noticed that there is a problem or two with Britain's libel laws and, more specifically, the habit of libel tourism about which this blog and EUReferendum has written repeatedly. (Which means that we may well have contributed a tiny amount to the powers that be noticing the problem.)

On Wednesday, a Written Statement was published in both Hansards, though true to my usual habit I am quoting from the Lords' one.

In response to concerns about the possibility that our libel laws are having a chilling effect on freedom of expression, the Government have set up a working group to examine issues relating to the substantive law on libel.

The terms of reference of this group are "to consider whether the law of libel, including the law relating to libel tourism, in England and Wales needs reform, and if so to make recommendations as to solutions". A list of members of the working group is attached.

The scope of the group's considerations will extend to all aspects of substantive libel law in England and Wales, but will exclude issues relating to costs in defamation proceedings, where work is already underway. The working group is intended to have an intensive, short term focus and has been requested to make recommendations by mid-March.

There follows a list of members though not anything remotely resembling a time table to which the group might adhere. It will need careful watching.

California legislates against libel tourism

I mentioned in a previous posting that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a law to protect American citizens in California from the depredations of libel tourism, whose destination, I am sad to say, is this country.

A couple of days later, two British newspapers caught up with the story. A straightforward account in the Daily Mail, which mentions that the process of protecting Americans from this insiduous practice has moved a little further than I had realized. Not only New York but Illinois has passed such a law and there is one in the pipeline in Florida.

Roy Greenslade reports in the Guardian but, judging by his intervention in the exchange of comments, has only a slender grasp of what he is writing about. Still, I would not like to see him silenced.

Do I really care?

Both this blog and EURef feel strongly about suppression of freedom, particularly in matters to do with speech and media. So why are we not that interested in the "shock, horror, Guardian has been gagged" story that is exciting the Conservative blogosphere.

There are several reasons. First of all, this is of little importance except for the Guardian that is steadily losing readers and needs some kind of publicity. We do not need newspaper reporting of Parliamentary proceedings. There is an excellent website that is very easy to follow; it publishes the Order Papers, Reports and Hansard. Unedited version of the latter goes up within three hours or, in other words, faster than any newspaper can or bothers to turn its reports round, and the edited version is there early the following morning. The Guardian is of little importance in the process.

Secondly, the Trafigura story, which the Guardian and various bloggers are boasting about, was not an exclusive. The Times and the BBC ran it about four weeks ago. Maybe the Grauniad got there first, maybe not. Either way, this is not a big issue any more. The story is out in the open.

Thirdly, I wonder about those free speech credentials. Did the Guardian publish the Danish cartoons? Would it publish anything of that kind that might precipitate threats from real nasties? I think not. Would the Guardian stick up for our right to publish those cartoons as I do above? I suspect I know the answer to that.

Naturally, like all people in any part of the media, I want to see the British libel laws changed and, in connection with that, I hear that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a Bill into law for California that would protect Americans from libel tourism (link as soon as there is one in the post-Columbus Day official statements).

UPDATE: Iain Dale writes that Carter-Ruck has "folded". The Guardian is now free to report the Parliamentary Question that was available on the web, anyway, and write about the underlying story that other media outlets have also covered. A non-solution to a non-story.