Harassed by libel law

The threat of legal action is having a huge impact online - many bloggers end up self-censoring as a result.

A couple of years ago, I republished a 20-year-old Guardian article that shed some light on activities that blogger Paul Staines, aka Guido Fawkes, was involved in at the time.

Within minutes of publishing it I was served with a legal notice claiming I was trying to defame him, and eventually I had to take it down after some wrangling. I didn't have the legal backing to test his challenge in court.

I mention this incident in light of attempts by English PEN and Index on Censorship to examine the impact of libel, as Jo Glanville explained last week, because libel law has had a huge impact on the internet. And there are numerous examples to demonstrate this.

In 2007, Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov used Schillings to shut down the websites of former diplomat Craig Murray and blogger Tim Ireland. More than 300 bloggers rallied in support of free speech to try to embarrass the parties involved in legal action.

More recently, a woman started legal action against three bloggers in a case that may have an incredibly damaging effect on web discussions if successful. As John Gray (one of the defendants) explains:

If this legal action was to be successful then there would be no Labour, Conservative or whatever blogs which allowed unmoderated comments or posts. Even moderated blogs would be under threat since the law allows spurious claims to be made which cost £1000s to defend.

At the Bloggers Summit I hosted at February"s Convention on Modern Liberty, Ben Goldacre pointed out (video here) that many science bloggers had been repeatedly threatened by libel action brought by big pharmaceuticals or con-artists protecting their products.

Whether it be science reporting, digging into false stories or simply highlighting an individual's past, bloggers are constantly being harassed by libel law.

There"s no doubt many end up self-censoring themselves as a result - knowing that they are right, but concerned that they cannot afford to protect themselves to prove as much. Hell, even satirists need to watch out these days.

Over the medium and longer term this will have big ramifications for our democracy. Newspapers and broadcasters are increasingly cutting down on their investigative reporting. Simultaneously, many bloggers are increasingly doing stellar work in digging into stories journalists haven't bothered with.

These range from exposing Boris Johnson's bus plans, to uncovering false newspaper stories, and digging into useless government programmes to catch out benefits claimants.

 Much as Paul Staines and Derek Draper may give that impression, blogging isn't just an exercise in willy-waving for many.

Much of the work done by this small army of citizen journalists is made difficult by libel laws stacked in favour of the rich, powerful and downright vexatious.

At the convention's Bloggers Summit, libel laws were the main concern on people's minds because of worries that anyone could be sued for comments posted to their blogs – even if subsequently removed after complaints.

It's an issue that goes to the heart of our democracy. Right now, it's not even clear if an earlier link to a blog now publishing something potentially libellous is an act of perpetuating libel itself.

There's several ways the law could be changed to make things easier – as I'm not an expert, I won't go into them.

But there's a key issue that may be missed out: the prohibitive cost of defending or at least getting rid of a baseless claim makes it very difficult for anyone without deep pockets to justify taking any chances.

Even if the principles behind libel law remain as a result of this consultation, they need to stop being so lucrative for lawyers and become more useful for people. guardian.co.uk