The Law of Libel When a public man so experienced
and level-headed as Major J. J. Astor, M.P., the chief proprietor of The Times, urges the necessity of the amendment of the law of libel, that is in itself strong prima facie evidence that revision of the law of libel is urgently needed. Clearly, laws against libel must exist, and it is significant that while in this country a relaxation is being sought, M. Blum in France, where the law is very different, is introducing - legislation empowering the Courts to impose financial damages in libel actions. No responsible journalist would advocate licence for the Press to cast aspersions on individual reputations, but Major Astor is perfectly right in saying that the law at present is "a veritable Klondykc for adventurous plaintiffs." The Bill drafted by the Empire Press Union assimilating the law of libel to the law of slander—which authorises the award of pecuniary damages only when it can be shown that pecuniary loss has been suffered—perhaps goes rather far, for pecuniary loss may mean less than the loss of good name, and papers ought not to be allowed with impunity to rob anyone of a good name who deserves it. But at present freedom of the Press is gravely restricted by fear based on experience of the caprice of juries, and even occasionally the vagaries of judges, both operating within a law which gives them far too much play. * *
Previous page
