A NEW defamation Bill before the Scottish Parliament will improve the clarity of the laws for journalists, MSPs have heard.
The Defamation and Malicious Publications (Scotland) Bill will, if passed, bring in a serious harm threshold which will have to be cleared before a defamation action can be raised.
Luke McCullough, a senior policy adviser at BBC Scotland, said that this would improve the landscape for journalists who would potentially scrap a story that has merit but they believe may lead to costly legal action.
Speaking before the Justice Committee at Holyrood, McCullough said: "The serious harm threshold is the major change that, to an extent ... helps to bat off some of the more frivolous attempts at investigative journalism."
McCullough also said that time and financial pressures on the media industry could mean journalists do not pursue stories that are in the public interest for fear of becoming the target of litigation.
He told the committee: "You see pressures of time, pressures of money, journalists in newsrooms where they are the only journalist and if it gets just too hard, you're going to do the thing that is easy, rather than the thing that is right."
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Holyrood bill proposes important changes to defamation law
John McLellan, the director of the Scottish Newspaper Society and former editor of the Scotsman, said the introduction of a threshold meant newsrooms would have extra confidence in their initial rebuttal of accusations of defamation.
He added: "It strengthens the ground on which you would say 'no, sorry, we have no case to answer' and therefore provides a strengthening of that weeding out process that we've heard before where letters arrive which are effectively a fishing exercise to see what will come back.
"In strengthening the grounds on which you can reject a bid, then it means there are fewer cases that are likely to be taken further and therefore reduces the exposure to further cost - I think that's very important."
Despite the changes the bill would bring, McLellan said that there would be no way to stop a person or organisation who had the financial backing to continue a case but would provide "a more effective filter".
Along with the threshold, the bill, if passed, will reduce the length of time allowed before an action is brought from three years to one year, as well as introducing a complete defence for secondary publishers of defamatory information.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel