I’m one of 17 signatories (on behalf of LibDemVoice) to a letter published in Saturday’s Guardian, reproduced below, which opposes the “fundamental threat” of the draft legislation approved this week by MPs of all parties which would regulate blogs and other small independent news websites.
It’s not often you’ll see us, ConservativeHome, LabourList, Guido Fawkes, Liberal Conspiracy and Political Scrapbook agree on something. But what we term the “botched late-night drafting process and complete lack of consultation” has, for once, brought us together. And, as the letter notes, perhaps even more remarkably got Tom Watson and Rupert Murdoch agreeing, too.
Here’s how The Guardian reports our letter and the next moves aiming to un-do some of the mess created by MPs’ shambolically rushed law-making on Monday:
The fear that bloggers and small-scale enterprises would be drawn into the Leveson net of regulation has provoked outrage. A diverse group of bloggers including ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie, LabourList’s Mark Ferguson, Guido Fawkes’s Paul Staines, Lib Dem Voice’s Stephen Tall and Political Scrapbook’s Laurence Durnan, in a letter to the Guardian, warn of the unforeseen consequences of the law. … Labour and Lib Dem sources said they would be tabling manuscript amendments to the crime and courts bill in the Lords to remove the threat. Two separate proposals have been suggested, either removing small businesses from the ambit of the proposed legislation or making it clear that not for profit groups would be excluded. It is thought both proposals in the eyes of civil servants have technical deficiencies, or will prevent opportunities for big media to circumvent the exemplary damages legislation. Instead civil servants are working on proposals based on either size or turn-over.
I think readers know my views on the post-Leveson legislation by now: that its well-meaning attempts to stick up for the victims of press excess are a dangerous infringement of free speech. Many of you, I know, disagree with me on this. What may be less contentious is that such legislation has to be very carefully thought-through if it is to avoid unintended consequences. That has not happened here, as Hacked Off itself has conceded.
Where does the majority of the blame for this cock-up lie? Here’s Paddy Ashdown’s take (via the same Guardian report):
… Paddy Ashdown [claims] David Cameron made a colossal “strategic blunder” in pulling out of talks on the creation of a new regulator for the press. Lord Ashdown said the Prime Minister had simultaneously damaged his standing with his own MPs, angered his supporters in the newspapers, and strained relations with his Lib Dem coalition partners. In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s The Week In Westminster, he said Mr Cameron managed to achieve the “Tory nightmare” of forcing Nick Clegg to line up with Labour. “I have not seen an avoidable strategic blunder made by a British prime minister or indeed the leader of a British political party which matches that of Mr Cameron over Leveson,” he said . “He marched his troops up to the top of the hill and then he had to march them back down again. In terms of strategy, this seems to me to make the Grand Old Duke of York look like a military genius.”
Botched draft that threatens the blogosphere
The Guardian – 23 March, 2013
The Leveson inquiry was set up to address “the culture, practices and ethics of the press, including contacts between the press and politicians and the press and the police” (Comment, 19 March). Our views diverge on whether the outcome of the Leveson process – and the plans for a new regulator – are the best way forward. But where we all agree is that current attempts at regulating blogs and other small independent news websites are critically flawed.
The government has defined a “relevant publisher” for the purposes of press regulation in a way that seeks to draft campaign groups and community-run websites covering neighbourhood planning applications and local council affairs into a regulator designed for the Guardian, Sun and Daily Mail. Even the smallest of websites will be threatened with the stick of punitive “exemplary damages” if they fall foul of a broad range of torts, encompassing everything from libel to “breach of confidence”. The authors of these proposals should reflect on their remarkable achievement of uniting both Tom Watson and Rupert Murdoch in opposition.
This appears to be the outcome of a botched late-night drafting process and complete lack of consultation with bloggers, online journalists and social media users, who may now be caught in regulations which trample on grassroots democratic activity and Britain’s emerging digital economy. Leveson was meant to be focused on the impact of “big media”. In the end it may come to be seen as a damaging attack on Britain’s blogosphere, which rather than being a weakness in British politics, has proved time and time again that it is a real strength.
We will all continue to write, campaign, cajole, amuse and irritate online. But we consider the current proposals a fundamental threat to doing just that.
Mark Ferguson LabourList
Tim Montgomerie ConservativeHome
Stephen Tall LibDemVoice
Laurence Durnan Political Scrapbook
Paul Staines Editor, Guido Fawkes’ Blog
Harry Cole News Editor, Guido Fawkes’ Blog
Alex Wickham Reporter, Guido Fawkes’ Blog
Sunny Hundal Liberal Conspiracy
Jag Singh Messagespace
Neal Lawson Compass
Nick Pickles Director, Big Brother Watch
Jim Killock Executive director, Open Rights Group
Emma Burnell Scarlet Standard
Adam Bienkov
Luke Akehurst
James Bloodworth Left Foot Forward
Jon Lansman Leftfutures
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Starmer kills off Leveson two
Michael's weekly ward surgeries today! #dundeewestend
Leon Duveen
Helen Dudden
Roland
Suzanne Fletcher
Joseph Bourke
24 Comments
I’m a small blogger, and I want to be able to sign up for regulation – as Leveson wanted me to. I’m afraid this campaign, and these amendments if they succeed, will deny me that choice.
One of the side-effects of the relentless propaganda campaign run by sections of the press against these reforms is the people assume regulation will be compulsory, and that it means only sticks and no carrot.
In fact, Leveson intended, and the Royal Charter envisages, that regulation will be entirely voluntary. None of the bloggers who wrote to the Guardian will have to sign up.
The reason Leveson thinks people will be incentivised to sign up is the big carrot regulation offers – protection from costs in libel cases. The threat of libel, and the risk of having to pay lawyers’ costs for the other side, is by far the biggest chilling factor on the free speech of bloggers. Signing up for this is in my view a no-brainer, as long as regulation is free or very low cost for the small blogger.
In contrast, the risk of “exemplary damages” is hugely exaggerated. They’ll only be awarded if a blogger shows deliberate or reckless disregard for people’s rights, “of an outrageous nature”. In other words unless you’re deliberately and unjustifiably monstering someone, it ain’t gonna happen. And, by the way, if none of this ever happens, it’s worth noting that courts can give exemplary damages against bloggers in libel cases already, including those who signed the Guardian letter.
I support bloggers’ freedom to choose not to be regulated. It’ll be very disappointing if liberal democrats, whose leader has supported the Royal Charter, want to deny me the choice to access the benefits of self-regulation.
Stephen, we are well aware that you are against any regulation of the British press, but Lib Dem Voice is not a platform for you to carry out your own private campaigns, and I and many others would rather that you didnt use it as such. Thanks.
You will be well aware that most of those who are trying to scupper the proposed press regulation are not doing so because they have concerns about the fine details – they are doing so because they want it entirely destroyed. They want the freedom to be able to continue doing this:
“Trans woman commits suicide after being bullied by the Daily Mail”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2013/03/trans-woman-commits-suicide-after-being-bullied-by-the-daily-mail/
You and some of the other “liberal” blog sites may well think you are joining a noble cause to try to modify the proposals, but dont be fooled. I suspect you are being treated as a “useful idiot” by the like of Guido Fawkes and Rupert Murdoch – giving them the cover they need to be able to say they have cross-party backing for their assault on ordinary people.
An interesting post about the purpose of LDV.
Tony Greaves
I agree with Cllr Wright.
Perhaps LDV editors should review the information available on the “About us” menu item, where it says that: “Our editorial line is neutral on matters of debate within the party and ….”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-liberal-democrat-voice-team
You can already be sued. The system would give a measure of protection in exchange for the burden of regulation. I’m struggling for logical reasons why a journalist/blogger would oppose this beyond hoping to take the Murdoch or Dacre shilling down the line.
@ Carl Gardner – I wouldn’t want to stop you. But you’re assuming you can join free of charge. The new self-regulation body will cost money and there is nothing in the legislation which says small sites will get it any cheaper than major publishers. I’ve no idea if a non-profit site like LibDemVoice would be able to afford to join yet, so you’ll excuse me if I hold back on the enthusiasm.
@ Cllr Mark Wright – you’re pro-Charter/regulation, and I’m anti. I get it. But your comment doesn’t engage with the concerns being expressed here at all. These are concerns expressed by folk like Sunny Hundal, Mark Ferguson and Laurence Durnan (all of them pro-Leveson). They are also concerns expressed by Hacked Off — to quote from their own press release which I linked to in my piece:
So if we’re “useful idiots” then we’re in very good company. For the record, btw, I consulted my LDV editorial colleagues before signing in the site’s name.
@ Richard Dean – The letter specifically recognises that its signatories disagree on the substance of the post-Leveson legislation so I was comfortable signing it on behalf of LibDemVoice. Though the site’s neutral we’ve never pretended that those of us who contribute to it are: the point is we represent a diverse range of views within the party, and offer a platform to anyone within (and sometimes beyond) the party to put across their own views. It would be a bit weird if the only people prevented from putting their own views across were those of us who put in the time to running the site!
@ Alistair – as I’ve always said, the one good proposal within Leveson was access to low-cost arbitration that avoided the ruinous expense of litigation. But as I’ve also said above, there is still too little clarity about the proposed system for us to know quite what risk we’d be taking on by signing up to the proposed regulatory system.
“You will be well aware that most of those who are trying to scupper the proposed press regulation are not doing so because they have concerns about the fine details”
So where does that leave people who do have concerns about the fine details? That is where the devil is usually to be found. This is legislation drafted in haste and passed into law without much scrutiny (3 hours plus whatever the Lords give it on reconsideration – when they also have some signficant bits of the substantive Crime & Courts legislation to deal with). That is a crazy way to make legislation as significant and potentially far reaching as this.
The Labour govenment was massively criticised for introducing huge numbers of provisions at report stage when they couldn’t be properly scrutinised in the Criminal Justice Act – that’s just what’s happening here.
Stephen – the Royal Charter says “The membership of a regulatory body should be open to all publishers on fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, including making membership potentially available on different terms for different types of publisher.” so there is plenty of scope for dealing with small publishers. But I agree that how this will operate in practice isn’t clear – which comes back the the broken record I keep playing about the lack of scrutiny for this legislation.
If all you want is to protect bloggers from the threat of exemplary damages and costs, Stephen – while leaving us the choice to join a self-regulator once we see what it’ll cost and what its code is, and enabling us to have the libel protection regulation would offer us – then fine.
But if you’re backing amendments that would change the definition of a “relevant publisher” so as to take small and non-profit blogs out of the system altogether – benefits and all – then you certainly do want to deny me choice, in spite of what you say.
Which is it?
@Hywel,
You’re right about what the Royal Charter says. But signing up will be of no benefit to bloggers (or at least, won’t give us the same benefits as it gives the press) if we’re excluded from the legislation. That’s the devilish detail I’m arguing with Stephen about.
I don’t have a problem with this post on LDV. I supported the regulation of the press, but I have a full time job and I do not have enough time to look at the details. It does alarm me reading this article the breadth of opposition to the parts of the agreement that relate to blogging and I hope it is not too late to make changes to what was agreed.
I would call it normal, not a bit weird at all. You either take responsibility or you don’t, there’s no half way.
“But if you’re backing amendments that would change the definition of a “relevant publisher” so as to take small and non-profit blogs out of the system altogether – benefits and all – then you certainly do want to deny me choice, in spite of what you say.”
As a blogger you’re eligible to be regulated, according to the royal charter. The Crime and Courts Bill governs only the “sticks” of exemplary damages and costs, and its definition of “relevant publisher” is already much more restricted than that in the royal charter. If you’re an individual blogger it already excludes you.
“Trans woman commits suicide after being bullied by the Daily Mail””
A tragic occurrence. But repeatedly posting links to this story isn’t really a substitute for reasoned discussion about press regulation, is it? Shouldn’t a liberal favour a more considered approach to such an important issue, rather than indulging in a kind of emotional blackmail?
@Hywel:
“This is legislation drafted in haste and passed into law without much scrutiny”
Perhaps it should be renamed the ‘Dangerous Press-dogs Act’? 🙁
@ Carl Gardner – “If all you want is to protect bloggers from the threat of exemplary damages and costs, Stephen – while leaving us the choice to join a self-regulator once we see what it’ll cost and what its code is, and enabling us to have the libel protection regulation would offer us – then fine.”
I fully support independent self-regulation and the right of those who want to opt-in being able to do so.
My personal view is this shouldn’t be (probably can’t be) legally enshrined without impinging on free speech.
With my LDV hat on, though, it will depend on more practical considerations, such as cost and the actual make-up of the regulator itself.
There’s also a Catch-22 for me: I don’t really want to be any part of a club that includes the Daily Mail/Express/Sun: if it does the code is clearly too diluted; and if it doesn’t then the regulator is clearly unworkable.
Haven’t you already joined that club, Stephen? All of you post online articles whose taste and appropriateness can be subject to debate.
That list of co-signatories is a very good reason not to support anything they advocate. Stephen is the only sensible person out of that whole bunch and on this occasion (unusually) I think he is profoundly mistaken.
Anything that unites the right wing press is not likely to be good for the rest of society !
“That list of co-signatories is a very good reason not to support anything they advocate.”
As a general principle, wouldn’t it be a good idea to look at the arguments on their merits, rather than taking a look at the proponents’ names and deciding on that basis to oppose whatever it is they may be saying?
“As a general principle, wouldn’t it be a good idea to look at the arguments on their merits, rather than taking a look at the proponents’ names and deciding on that basis to oppose whatever it is they may be saying?”
Yes, done that too. But if Enoch Powell, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley and Tony Benn were signed up to something, and wrote to a national newspaper publicising their mutual alignment in an effort to influence others, then my view would typically be influenced … and not in a positive way. Stephen aside, this is the modern day equivalent of the “No” campaign front bench in the 1975 EEC referendum, and as such are a highly (negatively) persuasive bunch!
Dominic
I think your comparison is ridiculous, but – even on those terms – if Enoch Powell, Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley and Tony Benn had agreed about something, I should be sufficiently impressed by that fact to consider it quite carefully on its merits rather than dismissing it unconsidered.
You mean like they all agreed that we should withdraw from the (then) EEC? Yes, very impressive :roll eyes:
The 4 I mentioned were certainly more heavyweight than Stephen’s co-signatories but a similar level of flapping of white coats
Dominic
How you arrive at your political opinions is your business, of course, but I don’t think you should ridicule others for considering issues on their merits. I find it rarely does any harm.