English Libel Law
sensible discussions can the best solution to a scientific or academic problem be found. The general public and journalists should also be allowed to exert positive pressure on politicians and commercial corporations which may lead to advancements in society. As Lord Nicholls said in his judgement of Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others , ‘The common law has long recognized the chilling effect of this rigorous, reputation protective principle. There must be exceptions. At times people must be able to speak and write freely, uninhibited by the prospect of being sued for damages should they be mistaken or misinformed. In the wider public
interest, protection of reputation must then give way to a higher priority.’ 13 Therefore, the current system ought to be reformed to reduce its complexity and the unwieldy high legal costs which follow it. These reforms should restrict certain parties’ ability to sue for libel unless the parties can prove that they have suffered actual harm and the publication in complaint has gone beyond a sensible debate of facts. Above all, it is about easing threats of long and expensive libel proceedings to individual writers, while press regulation should be made clearer to ensure individuals’ ability to protect their reputation is not undermined.
13 Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others [1999] UKHL 45
18
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker