The Law of Libel Most people who have given thought
to the English law about slander and libel, as it affects journalists and authors, are agreed upon two conclusions—first, that it opens Much too wide a door to speculative or unreasonable libel actions ; secondly, that it is important in amending it not to go too far to the other extreme; so as to enable the blackmail of individuals by newspapers to become a regular and un- punished practice, as it is, for example, in France. The new Law of Libel (Amendment) Bill promoted by the Empire Press • Union in association with Mr. A. P. Herbert must be studied in the light of both principles. Its best features seem to be three. First, it extends the privilege enjoyed by eeports of the proceedings of public bodies, so as to embrace those of a large number of public or quasi-public bodies not hitherto covered. Secondly, it greatly limits the liability of newsagents, booksellers, and other mere distributors. Thirdly, it obliges the plaintiff to give oral evidence that his reputation has suffered or may suffer, thus securing an opportunity in- all cases for his cross-examination. More doubtful features are that which would abolish the difference between written and spoken defamation as regards the necessity of proving special damage, and that which proposes to limit the liability of all defendants in libel actions to eases where there has been wrongful intent or negligence. Neither " intent " nor " negligence " are ever certainly provable ; and the more both can be kept out of any jurisprudence, the better. As a very old case says, "the Devil himself knoweth not what is in the heart of man." The relaxation given on this side seems, as it stands, too far-reaching.
* * * *
Previous page
