Libel laws distort publishing

Carol

Have to say they have a point...

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/82385-libel-laws-distort-publishing.html

Stirling

Depends what you call 'free speech.'

If it is to do with things like publishing national secrets then they are asking for it. If it is publishing comments that a person believes defamatory, then they should know better!

This wouldn't even be an issue if publishers hadn't insisted on cutting back on editorial staff who would have done this work as a part of their job descriptions.

Carol

It isn't always that simple Stirling.

Okay this is an extreme scenario:
Consider a writer who has information on say the past illegal/dodgy activities of a celebrity/politician or other person of public standing. They have the evidence to prove it, witnesses, paperwork etc.
Is it right that they are gagged and people who may have been effected, or perhaps could be, are kept in the dark because the writer and publisher are threatened by huge costs to defend their book in the courts?

There has to be an even playing field.

Stirling

The press code of conduct is all about 'public interest.'

Is it in the public interest to know these things or are the publishers out to make a quick buck from sensationalism? If a politician has a history then that is something for Westminster and not for public consumption.

It always amazes me when people run to the press first with these things; and not to the correct authorities - the footage of the man who died in the London riots last week for example (first given to The Guardian; instead of the Police Complaints Commission.)

RichardS

The problem there is, Stirling, that when people have gone to the 'correct' authorities in the past with incidents that have a high degree of public interest, numerous of these incidents have been covered up by those same authorities. It's only when the press gets involved that things get highlighted.

Carol

By going to the press there is more likelyhood of getting something done- sad but true.