In many ways it is surprising that no high profile blogger has been brought down by a libel action already, although I'm sure plenty have been intimidated.

It's also worth noting that just linking to a defamatory blog could be your downfall. For example, if I wrote 'I wouldn't to business with Joe Bloggs because of this [link to false claim that Joe Bloggs is dishonest]' it could be argued I had spread that false claim, even though readers would be forced to follow a link to another website to find out what that false claims was. Joe Bloggs would then be able to pursue me for compensation.

Some high profile bloggers regularly see their posts linked to by dozens of followers... ker-ching!

But set against this is the need to protect people from malicious lies, which could too easily be spread by bloggers.

Did you know that , apparently , you can sue for libel even if what is said is true . It refers to the reputation 'you have' not the one you may 'deserve '. This is currently the bone of contention in Tesco's battle with the Guardian over tax avoidance when what has been said is demonstrably true. (allegedly -ed.)

Never mind nasty creatures like Schillings. From 1963 to the mid 1970s, Arnold Goodman was the most powerful non-elected figure in Britain. His power was based on access to Harold Wilson. He first made an impact representing Nye Bevan and Richard Crossman in the "Spectator" libel case, Harold Wilson made him his lawyer when he won the 1964 election and for the next six years Goodman had the PM's ear. Goodman was skilled at extracting the most fulsome apologies in libel cases and even more skilled in stopping unwelcome stories before they appeared - Robert Boothby and Jeremy Thorpe being just two of his clients. More recently Labour’s libel lawyer of choice has been Anthony Julius.

I'm not sure what point you are making, Bruiser, other than to confirm that libel lawyers are usually a loathsome bunch and so are those who use a libel lawyer to censor free speech, as opposed to seeking redress or retraction of what Stephen (above) describes as malicious lies.

I am in total agreement with your views.

We abolished the blasphemy laws, let's get rid of this utter bag of shit now. The time has come to pull the rug from under these bullies. Time and again the authorities fail to do their essential job of protecting us, whilst doing a myriad of things they shouldn't.

I doubt whether a political party is going to commit to free speech (unless the Lib Dems?) so the blogs should swing into action.

The Devil blogged about the issue:
http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2008/07/empire-strikes-back.html

I think Newmania is half right (a bit more than usual). You have to bear the rehabilitation of offenders act in mind and be careful not to bring up spent convictions with malice.

In 1977 the Labour Party was forced to cut a party political broadcast that mentioned spent convictions of National Front members.

(But shouldn't someone with a spent conviction for theft be protected from a malicious individual writing to tell a prospective employer?)

However, malice has to be proved by the claimant and has a special meaning in law that varies according to the defence.

All sorts of people say that Monbiot is batty (I couldn't possibly comment) but the quote you use above demonstrates that at the very least he is not very bright. Today Robert Murat, not at all a wealthy man, has just collected in excess of 500,000 pounds in damages against powerful media groups who libeled him.

About the only thing I know for sure about Col. Spicer is that he supported his men with real vigour and ensured that they were allowed back into the regiment after their imprisonment. Er, that's called loyalty and honouring the unspoken bond between officers and men even at the risk of bringing down criticism from above.

If, and I have no idea, some one has libeled Spicer then they deserve everything they get.