The Wardman Wire

Lynne Featherstone MP has gone public with her concern about the Alisher Usmanov affair, and the problem of websites being closed down with a simple threatening letter from a law firm, merely alleging defamation.

Lynne has quite a good summary of events, and the problems raised. I hope she doesn’t mind me quoting in full here:

1 - Allegations made in book. 25,000 copies sold over a 12 month period. No action:

If you don’t know - he is an Uzbek billionaire (and then some) and owns a large chunk of Arsenal football club. Craig Murray - former British ambassador to Uzbekistan - made various allegations about him in his book. No libel writ.

2 - Allegations Repeated on website. Website targeted.

But he then repeated them on his website. Result?

Threatening legal letter to the firm hosting his website. Firm then decided to pull the computer on which his website was hosted - removing from the internet both Craig Murray’s site, but also a host of other sites from people who had never even mentioned Alisher Usmanov. Also caught in this was Tim Ireland (of Bloggerheads website, and who had also mentioned the allegations) - his site was pulled by the firm too.

3 - This is a symptom of wider problems not dependent on this case.

I’ve not actually read Murray’s book or blog - so I don’t know whether the allegations are true or not - but that’s not the point. There are two free speech problems here.

4 - Suppressing Criticism on Websites is too easy, and out of step with books and newspapers.

First - I’m all for people who publish things online being held accountable for what they say - but people who publish online should also have reasonable protection. It is possible to get an injunction against a book, newspaper etc before going ahead with a full action for libel - but there are hurdles you have to meet and in the end you have to make your case in court and win if you want to stop the allegations being distributed. That’s not what has happened here as far as I can see - one threatening legal letter, and that’s it - bing! - the site went.

5 - The possibility that innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire illustrates the need for a better process.

Second - those innocent sites caught in the crossfire - including Tory MP and London Mayor wannabe Boris Johnson and Labour councillor Bob Piper. These and others do seem to be back online - but they shouldn’t have gone in the first place.

6 - The effect has been the reverse of that intended, as bloggers have refused to back down.

In many ways the internet - and blogging community - has shown its resilience through this, with widespread support online for the principle of free speech (and far more publicity about the allegations I suspect than if the lawyers had never sent that letter!)

7 - Something Is Rotten in the State of our Libel Laws, as Shakespeare didn’t say.

Now - libel law isn’t my area of speciality, but clearly what’s happened here leads to the conclusion that there’s something wrong with our laws.

8 - And summary that hits all the key questions:

There’s much that is wrong with our libel laws overall (basically - too much power given to the rich who are willing to gamble on the libel lottery), but it may also be there are some smaller, more immediate changes that would be feasible to pursue in Parliament, even though I’m sceptical of the odds of getting a major libel law overhaul in the near future. Something to ponder - and I’m open to suggestions.

Later this week I’ll be taking a careful look at what comment there has been about the “Usmanov/Shillings vs Craig Murray and innocent bystandes imbroglio”.

I’ve been covering this a touch more than has been good for time spent with the rest of my life, but it’s a very important question for bloggers and for the credibility of the law and the legal profession in the UK - so I’ll continue to make it a focus.

In the meantime, if you are concerned by the developments we have seen, blog about it if you have a blog, and contact your MP (and comment below) if you don’t.

Don’t forget, MPs are here to receive representations from their constituents.