Just a few months ago, we were writing about a report declaring "the end of libel" because many of the big US media companies were facing no current libel suits -- for the first time that people could remember. Of course, we suggested there were other factors involved, including an increase in libel suits against others, such as blogs. However, it does seem that, beyond the strong free speech protections against silly libel lawsuits, many are realizing that filing a defamation lawsuit is simply not the best response anymore. In fact, it's often easier to just get your own story out there yourself. The initial reason behind libel laws was that they were needed in a time when the press was controlled by just a few players. However, in an age where anyone can be the press, the need for libel laws actually diminishes, as there are other, better, remedies in many cases.

Unfortunately, the UK is still stuck with its incredibly antiquated libel laws that put the burden on the accused and can create significant problems for people accused in cases where the goals are clearly to silence speech someone doesn't like, rather than deal with actual defamation. That can create massive chilling effects.

And, in the meantime, it can create a rash of libel lawsuits. So just a few months removed from the (not quite accurate) news that libel is "over" in the US, comes the news that libel cases in the UK have hit a 10-year high, fueled in large part by the internet. While the internet should be seen as an alternative to libel lawsuits, instead many are now seeing comments of others as being worth a libel suit in the UK. The article quotes people pointing out that these lawsuits are "expensive and often unnecessary." Seems like even more evidence for the UK to finally getting around to fixing libel law in the UK.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201010 ... e-us.shtml

As ever, the real winners are the legal teams...

Good job that university tuition will become unlimited. It might reduce the numbers of libel lawyers.

To be fair, the loudest critics of libel law in UK are lawyers.

They are mainly criticising one judge, (The Hon. Mr Justice Eady), who has single-handedly made Britain a libel tourism hot spot, and the small number of law firms (Carer Ruck), who have abused the system with his help.

It may be too little and too late, but Eady has been effectively demoted, and libel claimants can no longer expect him to be presiding over their cases, and iirc Carter Ruck got mauled when they took on the Guardian on behalf of Tesco (who are thieving crooks) and got their arse handed to them by Private Eye.

This highlights another major problem, why is it that only Private Eye is willing to risk getting sued? The Guardian was going to settle with Tesco until PE stepped in and gave them an easy win, and there's all sorts of foreign billionaires molesting our press at will because they are too insipid to talk about it.

The press want free speech as a right, but haven't got the nuts to stand up and demand it.

I think Private Eye used to create a new company each week for that weeks publication. So if it got sued it would only lose a weeks sales. With nothing of value at risk they might lose the sales for that week, but then they could simply go bust.

I suppose the Guardian and the Times can't copy that technique because it would screw up their carefully constructed tax avoidance schemes.