By Nik Williams, Acting project manager, Scottish PEN

FOLLOWING the publication of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, the US President, Donald Trump launched a legal challenge to stop publication. He failed, but this is not the first time Mr Trump has promoted libel laws as a manner to silence criticism – in the lead up to the 2016 election he wanted to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money”. This was continued in his recent criticism of Michael Wolff’s book, where he stated that if libel laws “were strong…you wouldn’t have things like that happen where you can say whatever comes to your head”. But strong laws generally suggest a weakness elsewhere and by calling for more restrictive laws, Mr Trump is calling for a system that seeks to diminish the civic space within which criticism can be made and diverse voices heard.

In Scotland, you do not need Mr Trump to see how inadequate defamation laws can empower the wealthy and powerful to shape public discourse through the threat of legal action. Lacking any substantial reform since 1996, defamation laws fail to adequately protect online speech in the same way that laws pertaining to telegrams fail to govern the use of mobile phones. The people of Scotland deserve better. The reforms suggested by the Scottish Law Commission in their final report published in December are a step in the right direction.

There is much to celebrate in the recommendations: the establishment of a serious harm threshold to dissuade trivial cases, or those brought solely to silence criticism; a statutory public interest defence that establishes an accessible defence for journalism and dissent; a single publication rule to ensure the time period within which an action can be brought does not restart every time a link or post is shared or viewed online; as well as establishing the principle that public authorities cannot bring action are all key reforms that will improve Scots law and protect free expression in Scotland.

Defamation actions are more likely when there is a power disparity between parties. Wherever you have out-of-date laws and a vibrant and engaged society, with journalists, community activists, scientists, academics or concerned members of the public speaking out on issues, there is always the threat of legal action from wealthy individuals, opaque organisations or corporations unwilling to engage with criticism. But by establishing more robust defences and higher thresholds we can defend the principle that everyone, irrespective of wealth, influence or access to legal representation, is entitled to have their voice heard.

The next stage will be Scottish Parliament. It is vital that it is not held up. This bill should not be stuck in limbo between the commission and parliament – we need MSPs from every party and constituency to stand up for laws that best protect the free expression of their constituents. A vibrant democracy is a loud one and parliament has a chance to significantly strengthen it here in Scotland.

After years of inaction, reform feels closer, but we can be bolder. We can call for changes to the law to be made through primary legislation that requires open scrutiny and we can ensure corporations cannot bring actions. Never is the power disparity and inequality of arms more brazen than when the legal forces of a corporation are brought to bear on individuals. Only then can we guarantee the laws of Scotland work for the rights of everyone. Finally after years of stagnation, we are setting off in the right direction. The ball is firmly in parliament’s court.