The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

THE LAW OF LIBEL

Tics freedom of the Press in this country is
one of those things concerning which, as a
nation, we have indulged in not • little boasting
when comparing ourselves in this regard with
our neigh hours 10,0111 the Channel; but, although
the British journalist is not subject to that
Government censorship which obtains in France,
the existing law a libel renders "the freedom
of the Press" to • great claire° only • pretty
figure of speech. For, if in reporting the pro-
ceedings of • public meeting, • newspaper pub-
jibes a speech containing slanderous matter, it
is exported to en Ration for libel, ilthough
it is discharging • recognised and useful duty.
The legislature, seeing this to be the position,
has from time to time exempted the reports of
certain meetings from the action of the law, and
now the giving publicity to judicial proceedings
is protected by privilege. But there are mauy
other meetings in which the public are deeply
Interested, that cannot be given in their entirety
because of the law; for instance, those of com-
mercial companies, in respect to which the very
points that are of the greatest interest to the
general body of the sharet older. and the public
generally have frequently to be suppressed,
because the newspaper has no protection from a
prosecution. That is how the law affects the
public, end the journalist is in • worse position.
He may in good faith, and without the slightest
ides of injuring anyone, publish an accurate
report of • public meeting, but if • speaker has
either openly or by covert allusion wounded the
reputation of anyone, he and not the libeller is
subject to an action for damages. The utter
want of principle or fairness in a law which
renders such a thing possible is abuodantly
insuifest, and we hail with satisfaction the Bill
of Sir Colniiin o'Loghlen to amend the law of
libel as it affects the newspaper prose His Bill,
which passed • second reading on Wednesday.
and is likely to become law with certain amend-
ments, proposes to remove the liability of a
newspaper proprietor to action or prosecution
for giving &faithful report of "public meetings
lawfully assembled for lawful purposes." unless
the publication is followed by • refusal to pull WI
an explanation by the party libelled that is fair
and not unreasonably lengthy. This will be •

great protection to the journalist, and will be for
the general advantage of the community, because
newspapers will be in a position to report faith-
fully proceedings at public meetings which are of
the utmost importance, but have hitherto been
suppressed because of their libellous character.
The only objection raised againat the Hill is that
if all meetings ootne within the law, a newspaper
report may give publicity to slanderous state-
ments made by "men of straw" whose wears
would yield no damages if awarded, and whose
opinions would never have been heard of or
regarded except for the publicity given to them
by the neivsparer. This appears prima facts to
be a valid objection, hut the fact is that speakers
without position or responsibility would in no
such case as is supposed be reported at all. So
that the fear of a wrong being sustained in this
way without a remedy is quite grotinilless.
As to the general action of the proposed law, we
think there is no doubt but it would toed
to make speakers more guarded in their lan
cuago. recognising the fact that they might
be made responsible for it The Bill provides
a useful reform in the la* of libel, and will, we
trust, be so treated by the seleot committee to
whom it is referred that its salutary provisions
may have full effect