Bloggers could face high fines for libel under the new Leveson
deal with exemplary damages imposed if they don't sign up to the new
regulator, it was claimed on Tuesday.
Under clause 29 introduced
to the crime and courts bill in the Commons on Monday night, the
definition of "relevant" bloggers or websites includes any that generate
news material where there is an editorial structure giving someone
control over publication.
Bloggers would not be at risk of
exemplary damages for comments posted by readers. There is also a
schedule that excludes certain publishers such as scientific journals,
student publications and not-for-profit community newspapers. Websites are guaranteed exclusion from exemplary damages if they can get on this list.
Kirsty
Hughes, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, which campaigns for
press freedom around the world, said it was a "sad day" for British
democracy. "This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on everyday
people's web use," she said.
She said she feared thousands of websites could fall under the definition of a "relevant publisher" in clause 29.
Hughes
said: "Bloggers could find themselves subject to exemplary damages, due
to the fact that they were not part of a regulator that was not
intended for them in the first place."
Exemplary damages and costs
imposed by a court to penalise those who remained outside the regulator
could run to hundreds of thousands of pounds, enough to close down
smaller publishers.
Harry Cole, who works for the Guido Fawkes
political blog, said it would not be joining the regulator and believes
that because its servers are based in the US it will be excluded from
the exemplary damages clauses.
"I don't see I should join a
regulator. This country has had a free press for the last 300 years,
that has been irreverent and rude as my website is and holding public
officials to account. We as a matter of principle will be opposing any
regulator especially one set up and accountable to politicians we write
about every day," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Carla Buzasi, the editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post
website, told the BBC: "I can't imagine any politician has had this
discussion because they have rushed this through so quickly.
"It
does worry me to a certain extent. Someone said this is a carrot and
stick approach. There doesn't seem to be too much of a carrot here."
The
exemplary damages clause was recommended in the Leveson report but has
been opposed by newspapers, including the Guardian, which have been
given legal advice that it could be contrary to the European convention
on human rights, which enshrines the principle of free speech.
Lord
Lester, the campaigner for libel reform, warned during the Leveson
debate in the House of Lords earlier this year that publications such as
Private Eye and local newspapers could face closure as a result of the
imposition of exemplary damages.
On Monday night, the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger said he welcomed cross-party agreement on press regulation, but said: "We retain grave reservations about the proposed legislation on exemplary damages."
Under
sustained questioning on Monday night during the Commons debate about
the courts bill, which includes the Leveson regulations, the culture secretary, Maria Miller, said
the "publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the
publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a
business, whether their material is written by a range of authors – this
would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger – and whether that
material is subject to editorial control".
Miller said the new
rules were designed to protect "small-scale bloggers" and to "ensure
that the publishers of special interest, hobby and trade titles such as
the Angling Times and the wine magazine Decanter are not caught in the
regime", but Hello! magazine would be subject to regulation.
She
said the "one-man band or a single blogger" would not be affected by the
legislation because of the definition of "relevant publisher" in
relation to exemplary damages.
Miller said "student and
not-for-profit community newspapers" will not be caught under the new
rules and that "scientific journals, periodicals and book publishers
will also be left outside the definition and therefore not exposed to
the exemplary damages and costs regime".
There was also confusion
about which magazines would come under the remit of the new regulatory
body. Miller said scientific journals would fall outside its scope, but
the British Medical Journal, for example, is currently regulated by the
Press Complaints Commission.
Sunny Hundal, editor of the Liberal Conspiracy blog, said he didn't see a cause for panic.
"There's
a danger we miss the wood for the trees, as bloggers can already face
big fines for libel. I'm fairly confident the eventual body will
differentiate between Guardian.co.uk and independent bloggers. Trying to
regulate the latter, even Leveson admitted in his final report, would
be a step too far.
"The key will be to differentiate between huge
operations such as Huffington Post and voluntary blogs like Liberal
Conspiracy. We should be vigilant but I don't see a cause for panic
yet."
Don't you Sunny? Well wake up and smell the coffee mat, because this has been on the agenda for a long time. They desperately need to stem the flow of uncensored information from people like me and countless others who can see the bigger picture and are perceived as a threat to their plans to enslave us all.