As reported by the Newspaper Society: And in letters to The Times and The Sun this week, the Bill’s founder Lord (Anthony) Lester also condemned the amendment proposed by Lord Puttnam, saying that the bill was "designed to make much-needed reforms to outmoded English libel law not to tackle media intrusion on private life."
In an article in The Telegraph, John Whittingdale is reported as saying he was “wholly opposed” to the proposals to create a new arbitration service between newspapers and members of the public making claims for defamation. It would create a press law almost unique in the developed world. “It sets it up in legislation and therefore potentially allows Parliament and government to manipulate it.”
Lord Lester wrote: “Free speech in this country is in grave danger of being stifled by party political gamesmanship. The threat comes from politicians who have hijacked an attempt to reform our out-of-date, repressive libel law by clogging the Defamation Bill with wrecking amendments.”
He also wrote to The Times on Tuesday in reply to Lord Skidelsky and explained why the Leveson inspired proposals on exemplary damages were unlawful.
Meanwhile, the Leveson Report’s proposals to punish newspapers with exemplary damages if they refuse to join a new regulator have been declared unlawful by three leading QCs because they would breach human rights. The joint opinion, by Lord Pannick, Desmond Browne and Anthony White, concludes that the plans would violate Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects freedom of expression.
