Monica, a prostitute, and the Star were telling the truth, but a High Court jury did not believe them and awarded Archer £500k damages (the judge told the jury to reflect in damages the Star’s insistence on claiming truth)

As we now know, Archer lied and got another witness to lie for him, hence his later conviction for perverting the course of justice.

The Star got its money back, but it took a long time for the truth to come out, and had one of Archer’s alibi witnesses not gone to the police it may never have come out at all.

Truth is an absolute defence, but in proving it you have to bear in mind that a libel court may not look as kindly on your witnesses as you would like.

I’m all for greater legal knowledge, well I would be wouldn’t I?

But sad to say that does not forestall legal action. If the law were as clear cut as some here are suggesting, then an awful lot of libel lawyers would be out of business.

Many publishers have learnt to their cost that the truth can be expensive if you cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the High Court. Libel claimants know this and the deck is so stacked in their favour, and the danger of loss so expensive, that the mere threat of an action prevents publication. That’s the chilling effect.

Great to see discussion on here – it was posted just as I went away so haven’t had a chance to comment till now. A couple of things to add:

Jim, I don’t agree on the whole, but welcome your comments and criticism, thank you. If it was as simple as knowing the law then why do big media organisations with staff trained in media law employ lawyers to check their material? Why do we even need judges to make decisions if there’s a clear right and wrong? Grey areas are not just a result of new technology (for example: how long to allow for a right of reply / are you liable for online comments written by external contributors?) but also because people interpret the law differently. The more research and reading I do around this subject, the more confusing I find the position for online writers. Lawyers I have talked to agree there are uncertain areas for bloggers. The point of this support group would be to identify problem areas and to keep on top of developments in case law etc. I would have thought that is a sensible addition to other media law training and McNae’s and no-one has to join in if they think it’s a waste of time.

Paul, thanks for setting up the LinkedIn group.

Matt, thanks for emphasising that and the wider issues at play. I used the Osler case to show how an independent blogger can get drawn into a legal row very easily – to get to the point where a judge rules in the defendant’s favour or strikes the case out can take years. The Kaschke cases raised especially interesting points about comment moderation. English media law is not like an automated system and with the development of online technology there are many new factors to consider.

An important point: Dave Osler is a professional freelance journalist with several decades of experience – though he’s now working in something around Shipping (I think).

He’s also a blogging veteran who’s been involved with multiple campaigns on exactly this issue – like many of the rest of political bloggers.

So, there’s quite a bit of experience/knowledge behind his standing his ground.

Good to see you on the OJB.

Rgds