My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

For more information on Mumsnet Campaigns, check our our Campaigns hub.

Mumsnet campaigns

Reform of the libel laws - add your support here

52 replies

JustineMumsnet · 04/01/2010 15:41

As you know we've been banging on about libel and the need to reform the current law since our not so private little spat with Gina Ford. So we're delighted to offer support to the Libel Reform Campaign, a joint campaign organised by the Index on Censorship, English PEN, and Sense about Science. The aim is to put pressure on the government to introduce legislation to reform the England's libel laws.

In the words of Jonathan Heawood, Director of English PEN: 'Our libel laws allow people accused of funding terrorism or dumping toxic waste in Africa to silence their critics, while 'super-injunctions' stop the public from even knowing that such allegations exist.' John Kampfner, CEO of Index on Censorship, says: 'If we don't act we're at risk of becoming a global pariah.' And Justine Roberts (who she?) adds: 'These are print laws for a digital age.'

Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced a review of libel laws at the end of last year, with the aim of introducing secondary legislation before the end of this parliament. If you'd like to pile the pressure on, please add your voice to the petition here.

OP posts:
Report
BigBadMummy · 04/01/2010 15:47

Done.

Along with the letter to MP.

Report
GrimmaTheNome · 04/01/2010 16:15

Done. Some of the recent cases and threats against scientists have been outrageous - eg
this one.

Report
tatt · 04/01/2010 16:37

the libel laws are not working as they should. I'd rather see some suggestions for how they might be reformed but I have signed anyway.

Betetr to do personal letters or e-mails to MPs. No point in contacting mine as they have no interest in constituents unless they are members of their party or donating money to them.

Report
LadyBlaBlah · 04/01/2010 16:38

I have missed all this - it is very interesting

I love it that right of the end of the article posted by Grimma, that the company responsible for the agent says "we have used this on 1.2 million people and there have been no adverse effects in 99.5% of people"

Oh, so 600,000 is an acceptable number is it?

I don't suppose I will ever understand why people think they can stop people saying things because they consider it to be not right.......if someone is saying something that is not correct, well, erm.....correct them. What is the big deal?

Report
Ewe · 04/01/2010 16:38

Done!

Report
TheCrackFox · 04/01/2010 16:44

Done

Report
StewieGriffinsMom · 04/01/2010 17:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

bruxeur · 04/01/2010 17:26

LBB - 600,000 is half of 1.2 million.

I think you mean 6000, which is still quite a lot.

Report
LadyBlaBlah · 04/01/2010 17:57

Yeah that is exactly what I meant

Report
LauraIngallsWilder · 04/01/2010 18:11

Done - and the letter I shall do this evening

Report
morningpaper · 04/01/2010 20:09

obviously this will never affect ME but I've signed anyway ...

Report
Jux · 04/01/2010 23:32

Done

Report
memoo · 05/01/2010 10:48

Done, will do the letter when I get 5 minutes where the baby is crying

Report
memoo · 05/01/2010 10:52

Have done the letter, only takes 30 seconds

Report
JulesJules · 05/01/2010 10:52

Done and wrote to my MP*. My MP wrote back to say that he has raised the matter with the minister at the Ministry of Justice and he will keep me advised of his response.

*Although obviously cannot see "MP" now without thinking "morningpaper"

Report
restlessnative · 05/01/2010 19:07

I have done so already but thank you, Justine for alerting us.

This is a very important issue - witness the science writer Simon Singh's case: latest on Jack of Kent's blog (if you're on twitter and are interested you might like to follow him on @jackofkent ) or take a look at sense about science.

Plus the case of cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst who is being sued over his criticisms of an American trial of a heart implant.

I agree entirely with mumsnet's statement:

'We would stress that we accept that individuals have a right to protect their reputations. However, this right always has to be balanced against the rights of others to freedom of expression. At present we believe that this balance is not struck in the right place.'

And add that unless scientists, journalists and bloggers are at liberty to present their findings without fear, we are all affected: via issues of health, politics and even in education.

Report
StewieGriffinsMom · 07/01/2010 07:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

OrmIrian · 07/01/2010 10:35

Done.

Report
jofeb04 · 07/01/2010 10:38

Done.

Report
DorotheaPlenticlew · 07/01/2010 11:12

Done.

Report
HerBeatitude · 07/01/2010 11:18

Done

Report
domesticslattern · 07/01/2010 12:02

done

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

LadyBiscuit · 07/01/2010 12:02

Done

Report
morningpaper · 07/01/2010 14:02

bump

Report
catsdontscreetch · 07/01/2010 14:56

And me

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.