Draft defamation bill given cautious welcome by libel reform campaigners

Campaigners have welcomed the publication by the government of its draft defamation bill, but have warned that it does not go far enough to protect the freedom of expression of academics, scientists, non-governmental organisations and journalists.

March 16, 2011

The draft bill, which has been put out for consultation, gives a qualified exemption from libel claims for scientific conferences.

It also introduces a new requirement that a statement must have caused substantial harm in order for it to be defamatory, as well as firming up existing defences based on truth and “honest opinion”, and codifying a new statutory public interest defence.

The consultation document asks a series of further questions, including whether specific restrictions should be placed on the ability of corporations to sue for libel, as campaigners have demanded.

The draft bill adopts around half of the measures called for by the Libel Reform Campaign in its What Should a Defamation Bill Contain? document, released last week.

Among the proposed measures not taken up is the call for liability for archive material to be limited to one year from original publication.

“This is something that academic publishers and scientists are going to have to ask the government to clarify,” said Síle Lane, public liaison and campaign manager at campaign group Sense About Science.

David Willetts, minister for science and universities, said: “I encourage all who care about protecting scientific debate to respond to the consultation and tell us what works and what should be improved. I am inviting key members of the science community to discuss the bill with me next week.”


Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs

Occupational Health Manager

University Of The West Of Scotland

Senior Veterinary Epidemiologist

Scotland's Rural College (sruc)

Architecture Manager

University Of Leeds

Research Associate

Kings College London