COMPANIES attempting to gag their critics should face restrictions when pursuing legal action, according to Scotland's main law reform group.
In a major new discussion paper, the Scottish Law Commission says it sees "advantages" in making it harder for profit-making bodies to sue for defamation.
However, the commission, a statutory body which advises the Scottish Government on new legislation, fell short of endorsing Australian-style rules that stops business reaching for libel lawyers altogether.
Background: Why The Herald is campaigning for defamation reform
The commission's 130-page paper was published amid growing clamour for Scotland to bring its antiquated defamation laws into the 21st century, not least to take account of the digital age.
England and Wales modernised their libel laws in 2013, introducing a test of "substantial harm" before individuals or corporations can sue for defamation, freeing up courts from international libel tourists using London to settle scores from around the world.
The Herald – along with freedom of expression group Scottish PEN – has been campaigning for at least such effective reforms north of the border amid concerns that threats, including those from big business, are having a chilling effect on journalism.
The SLC has set out several radical potential reforms, including a substantial harm test, the prospect that the reputations of the dead could be protected in law and restrictions on business.
Read more: SLC's Lord Pentland writing on on defamation reform in The Herald
The paper said: "Our current thinking is that we do not wish to set Scotland apart as a jurisdiction in which bodies existing primarily to make a profit are not entitled to make a profit.
"Nevertheless we can see advantages in imposing additional restrictions."
This recommendation comes after several high-profile cases of major corporations trying to silence their critics with either legal action or even the threat of legal action. This included a bid by McDonald's to sue two London Greenpeace activists for a pamphlet they published on the firm. That "McLibel" case took two decades to resolve and ended with the UK Government being criticised in the European Court of Human Rights.
Business leaders are nervous about the proposals.
David Watt, of the Institute of Directors, said: "I think we would need to be very cautious about restricting the rights of businesses to defend their reputation.
"Companies employ people and defamatory information can hurt them and their employees.
"We have seen social media campaigners spreading untruths about firms, sometimes from their competitors.
"Of course, companies shouldn’t go after critics who tell the truth or make fair comments. But they should have the same rights as anyone else to challenge things that are made up or wrong."
Any potential move to protect the reputations of the dead will also be controversial.
Recent years, for example, have seen several public scandals involving allegations of sex abuse against the recently deceased who cannot speak in their own defence. However, sometimes these allegations have only emerged because alleged victims felt free to speak without fear or action.
Paul Cullen, pictured above, the judge who as Lord Pentland chairs the SLC, called for feedback to a whole variety of proposals in his 130-page discussion paper.
He stressed that in an age of TripAdvisor, Facebook and Twitter, everybody could be affected by libel laws.
He said: "It is at the cutting edge of freedom of expression and protection of reputation; two important human rights. The law in this area must be in tune with the values of modern society."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here