• News
• Sport
• Comment
• Culture
• Business
• Money
• Life & style
• Travel
• Environment
• Blogs
• Video
• Jobs
• A-Z

The cost of free speech

England's libel laws are still rotten

The David Irving libel trial: special report

Much praise has deservedly been heaped upon the bewigged head of Mr Justice Gray for his reasoned judgment in the case which David Irving so ill-advisedly launched against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. The legal process exposed Irving for what he is: an unpleasant racist who perverted history to malign ends. But pause a while, before the case becomes mythologised as a result for the law of libel in assuring the triumph of good over evil. Penguin ran up bills of well over £2m in the course of defending Prof Lipstadt's right to express an opinion about Irving's peculiar view of the Holocaust. Thanks to the generosity and resilience of Jewish backers, both here and in the US, they will not have to meet the full cost. It is unlikely they will see much of Irving's money, any more than the Guardian has yet to see a penny of Jonathan Aitken's money. Free speech can be very expensive.

Our sister paper, the Observer, was also sued by Irving, for an article by the writer Gitta Sereny which also discussed his historical methodology. That action was paused while the Penguin action went ahead - but not before the Observer spent about £600,000 amassing the necessary evidence to counter Irving's action. We assume even Irving would not have the nerve or ability to continue the Observer case. But dropping it would simply leave the paper stranded somewhere in the queue of Irving's creditors.

English libel law - with its reversed burden of proof and limited qualified privilege - provides poor protection for writers and publications wishing to tackle difficult but important subjects. It is a scandal that Penguin's and the Observer's defence of their writers should have cost the best part of £3m. Irving - like Aitken before him - was foolish in his choice of adversary, for neither defendant flinched. But our libel laws present a formidable weapon against free speech to those who use them malignly.