PressEthic

Journalists have scored a victory in the passing of a British law that will allow the publication of allegations about public figures if their reporting is in serious public interest.

At its best, the law will allow members of the press the freedom to conduct investigative journalism without the fear of being sued; at its worst, it could further encourage the publication of gossip for the sake of gaining the attention of the public.

The New York Times reported today:

“The ruling, a unanimous judgment by the Law Lords, is a huge shift in British law and significantly improves journalists’ chances of winning libel cases in a court system that until now has been stacked against them.

English judges have traditionally been so sympathetic to libel plaintiffs that many people from abroad have sued in English courts — even if the publications in question have tiny circulations here — because they have had a much better chance of winning here than at home.

Newspaper editors said the decision, in the case of Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe, would free them to pursue stories vigorously without constant fear of lawsuits.

“This will lead to a greater robustness and willingness to tackle serious stories, which is what the judges said they wanted,” said Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian. Until now, he said in an interview, newspapers have had to police themselves to the point where “stories weren’t getting in the paper or wore being neutered by clever lawyers who knew how to play the game.”

Whether it is libel accusations or the protection of sources, journalists and the legal system have rarely coexisted in harmony, in The U.S or abroad. The right for the press to keep the public informed can bear little weight against those in positions of power. In fact, this particular ruling was initiated by a battle between journalists and large businesses.

”The case concerned an article published on Feb. 6, 2002, in The Wall Street Journal and in its European edition, The Wall Street Journal Europe, which has a daily circulation of 18,000 in Britain.

The article said that at the request of the United States, Saudi Arabia was monitoring bank accounts of prominent Saudi businesses and individuals to trace whether they were being used, possibly unwittingly, to siphon money to terrorist groups.

One of the businesses mentioned, Abdul Latif Jameel Company Ltd., sued the newspaper, as did Muhammed Abdul Latif Jameel, its general manager and president. Under British libel law, newspapers being sued are required to prove the truth of the allegations they print — the opposite of the situation in the United States, where the burden of proof falls heavily on plaintiffs.

But that was a practical impossibility in this case, a member of the panel that ruled on Wednesday, Lord Hoffmann, wrote in his decision.

“In the nature of things, the existence of surveillance by the highly secretive Saudi authorities would have been impossible to prove by evidence in open court,” he said. The paper argued that the article was in the public interest — that is, important to the debate about terrorism and the authorities’ efforts to combat it.”

For reporters who struggle for their right to serve as watchdogs, this law is a welcome development. Whether or not courts will continue to agree on the definition of “public importance” will be determined in time. When it comes to keeping people informed about the whereabouts of public figures, where is the line drawn between governmental overregulation and perverse voyeurism? Furthermore, how much evidence constitutes a publication-worthy scandal?

NY Times article