Rogues' Playground

As Laborite M.P. Harold Lever sees it, British libel laws are a "playground for rogues." Even though the basic principles of libel in Britain are the same as in the U.S., Britain's ancient laws have so many loopholes that court verdicts are often weighted heavily against newspapers. Seven months ago Lawyer Lever set out to change the laws, got the full backing of the British press, which has been clamoring for a liberalization of the statutes for years. Last week, thanks largely to Lever's efforts, Britain's libel laws were getting their first real overhauling in 50 years. The House of Commons passed a new Defamation Bill and sent it to the House of Lords, where it is expected to be voted into law.

British newspapers had good reason to cheer the legislation. Under the present laws, newsmen are barred from going after the kinds of stories that often make Page One news in the U.S. For example, as a result of strict rules about "damage to reputations," there is scarcely a newspaper in Britain that would dare run the risk of exposing a British businessman who had made gifts to a government official. Even the laws of "qualified privilege" (i.e., libelproof material) are so tight that if a U.S. Senator called a British minister a rascal on the floor of the Senate, a British paper that published the news (as a U.S. newspaper could) would be subject to suit.

Fact & Fiction. Futhermore, said Lever, the laws are so bad that they "provide an opportunity for a whole lot of unscrupulous people to bring actions . . . merely for the purpose of extorting money damages." In one classic case London's Daily Mirror lost a damage suit to a man who had the same name as an imaginary character in a light-hearted Mirror article on French resorts.

Even sportwriters are limited in what they may write; they say little more about a foul at a prize fight than that one boxer "was disqualified for an alleged infringement of the rules." To describe the foul might bring a suit for damaging the fighter's professional reputation. A professional golfer once won a suit against the Press Association wire service when it mistakenly reported he had turned in no score at a tournament, because the misinformation was "detrimental to his livelihood." Critics of theater, books, music and movies are restricted the same way; a flatly unfavorable verdict may be taken as a reflection on character and bring a suit.

One of the most striking inequities in the present law is that a paper may be sued when a story is correct in all its major details, if it is wrong on a minor fact. Thus the Daily Mail exposed a "swindling share-pusher" who had been selling phony stocks all over Europe, and added that he had become a Canadian citizen by improper means. The swindler sued the paper and won $200. The Mail proved to the court's satisfaction that he was a swindler, but was wrong about his citizenship.

Thieves & Drunkards. Among the important provisions of the new libel bill:

P: In the case of "unintentional defamation," a correction and an apology will usually be enough to prevent collection of damages.

P:If the bulk of a statement is true, that is an adequate defense, even if the statement is wrong in a minor detail. Thus a man called a "thief, drunkard, loose-liver and forger" cannot collect damages by proving that he never drinks.

P:The boundaries of "qualified privilege" are extended and the meaning of "fair comment" is broadened so that newspapers will be able to criticize more freely when they have facts to back up their opinions.

In approving the new bill,* British newspapers agreed with Sponsor Lever, who said: "We ought to have a care that by over-meticulous and academic regard for the rights of rogues ... we do not inhibit a good deal of healthy expositions of them from being published."

*But the bill leaves untouched British law on reporting criminal trials, which 1) prohibits the naming of a suspect until he is jailed, and 2) restricts newspapers to the barest facts of an arrest or indictment and to reporting only what takes place in court once trial has started. For violating these strictures, newsmen have been jailed for contempt of court (TIME, April 4, 1949).

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.