Columns

British journalists unbound

By ROBYN BLUMMER
Published November 25, 2006

In the United States, the First Amendment provides a broad shield for journalists sued by the subjects of their reporting. The balance in our libel law has been struck in favor of protecting free speech rather than erring on the side of protecting privacy or reputations.

The British have traditionally taken the other tack. Their libel laws have been notoriously weighted toward the plaintiff. To avoid being successfully sued, news organizations have had to tiptoe in places where they would normally stride confidently.

Now comes a new ruling out of Britain's highest court that moves that country's law within striking distance of its American cousin. In a unanimous judgment by the Law Lords in October, the court articulates a new qualified privilege in libel cases that grants responsible journalists the right to report allegations against public figures.

The case of Jameel vs. Wall Street Journal Europe involves a published account of how, at the behest of the United States, Saudi Arabia had started a program of secretly monitoring the bank accounts of certain Saudi businessmen to see if the accounts were being used, whether knowingly or not, to fund terrorist groups. Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd. and its general manager sued the European edition of the Wall Street Journal after the company appeared as one of the businesses under surveillance.

In Britain, defendants in a libel action have the burden of proving the truth of any allegations made. But the newspaper could not do so in this case due to the secrecy of the surveillance program. This lapse led the lower British courts to find that Jameel had been defamed, and the Journal was ordered to pay about $74,000 in damages.

But the nation's highest court saw things differently, recognizing the abiding importance of reporting on terrorism-related issues even when proof cannot be offered. In defense of the legality of the Journal's reporting, one member of the court's panel wrote, "We need more such serious journalism in this country, and our defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it."

This approach reflects a new acceptance of vigorous journalism, and it means the British public should soon enjoy the fruits of an unshackled press.

[Last modified November 25, 2006, 00:54:39]