Today, the Lib Dems voted to combat Britain's libel laws. It's about time someone stood up to the legal system which shames Britain around the world.

By Ian Dunt

There is a law in Britain which stands like a black stone in the heart of the country. It humiliates us overseas, and stifles free speech at home. It presents us with a clear and present threat against the public health.

As with so many political issues, the truth of the matter is rarely as eloquently phrased as it is by comedians and eccentrics. As it was with the fool in King Lear, so it is in the modern world. In this particular example, the point was made by the writers of the brilliant and savage satirical American cartoon South Park - Trey Parker and Matt Stone. During an episode mocking Scientology - never screened in the UK but freely available on the web - Tom Cruise ends the story by screaming: "I'm going to sue you... in England."

Britain's libel laws have shamed us internationally. There's a pernicious peculiarity to libel, which allows for a case to be launched in the UK if someone in the country viewed the article on the net, wherever the website is based. It's just one of the many foolish, irresponsible and profoundly inane aspects of the way libel applies on the net. Another, which belongs firmly in a parallel legal universe where logic is considered frivolous, states that each day a new potential libel begins on a given article, complete with a new statute of limitations. Similar legal nonsense applies to books which anyone at all in Britain has read. Any kind of contact with the UK - digital or otherwise - means the case can be heard here. And it invariably is, because Britain has the most draconian libel laws in the civilised world.

The burden of proof is on the defendant, not the claimant, meaning the writer has to prove he did not defame someone, rather than the other way round. The sheer wrongness of this state of affairs is overwhelming. You shouldn't have to prove you didn't rape or burgle anyone, so why should you have to prove you didn't defame anyone? Some might argue this is a more trivial offence than burglary, but it is not. It is a law that defines us as a civilisation, because it mediates the free-flow of ideas.

British law is affecting the activities of those writing in other countries, as cases are launched on them from London. It forces them - in the vast majority of cases - to give up on their books and articles rather than face the crippling financial costs of defending a libel case where the odds are purposefully weighed against them.

Britain's libel laws are so stringent, so unfair, that they have become a danger to public health. Take the case of Simon Singh, the well-respected scientific author who is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association for an article questioning the use of chiropractic techniques in childhood illness. As Richard Dawkins told the Liberal Democrat conference today, the Association was offered a right of reply in the Guardian, where Singh's article was published. They rejected it. Even better, Dawkins continued, they could have demonstrated the technique's effectiveness in experiments and published the results. They did not. Instead, they sued for libel.

Chiropractic involves the manipulation of the spine, and the view of many scientists is that it is ineffective in treating childhood conditions such as asthma. Many homeopathic treatments have a similar approach to the process of empirical data. By that I mean: they are unaware of what the words mean. Things are slightly different in the case of drugs promoted by pharmaceutical companies or even rich entrepreneurs. Often their remedies are effective at treating the ailments they are designed to cure. Sometimes they are not. Ben Goldacre, the writer of the excellent Bad Science column in the Guardian, was sued for criticising the promotion of vitamin pills in Africa as a cure for HIV/Aids, for instance.

Without the advancement which comes from peer-reviewed research and professional criticism, science dies. The greatest technical achievements of man come through trial and error. Britain's libel laws remove the capacity of the scientific and public world to assess error, by denying those who criticise developments the safety in which to do so. And it doesn't just limit that ability here, it limits it around the world. At a time when Britain agonises about its lack of international influence, we must swallow the fact that our greatest global effect is to stifle freedom of speech and scientific advancement. It's difficult to think of another fact which fills me with greater shame.

What's true for science is true for political ideas. We proceed through vigorous debate. That is the defining characteristic of western civilisation since the Enlightenment. It is the foundation stone of our culture. British libel directly opposes it.

Just as worrying is the freezing effect of the law. You cannot assess the effect of libel just by the cases which eventually occur. For a start, pitifully few people are rich enough, or strong-willed enough, to stand up to a libel case. As Singh said during a fringe event at the Lib Dem conference today: "The smart thing to do when faced with a libel case is to give up or apologise." His case began in April 2008. So far he has given up work and spent £100,000 defending himself. If he loses, he will have lost around £250,000 and two years of his life. If he wins, he will have lost about £50,000 (you never really get the whole of the money back) and two years of his life. Put simply: Even when you win, you still lose.

This is not merely a libertarian issue about free speech. It is also an egalitarian issue. Singh can only fight his case because he is the author of several bestselling books. Most victims - and they are victims - of libel attacks are not so fortunate, There is no choice for them, but to roll over for the rich corporations and individuals who wield their legal power like mighty warriors. They are not. They are cowards and charlatans hiding behind capital, and they use it to smother free speech and undo those characteristics - debate, freedom of speech - which mark us out as a country.

Their wealth vastly exceeds that of Fleet Street. Even newspapers famous throughout the world cannot afford to risk a case, so they stifle important stories. Just last week, the Economist was nearly finished off by a libel case. That goes doubly for websites like politics.co.uk which would be sunk, instantly, by a lawsuit. I won't waste time telling you about the well researched, important stories we have had to sit on due to the oppressive power of powerful multinationals and individuals - and I couldn't even if I wanted to. There was one example just last week, when Trafigura's settlement in its case against Leigh Day and Co allowed several media outlets - politics.co.uk included - to finally publish the stories and interviews they had sat on for fear of a lawsuit from their lawyers.

It's difficult to imagine a law which does more damage to our society and yet earns so little press - despite the impact it has on the press. At a press briefing after the Lib Dem vote today, only PA and politics.co.uk bothered to attend. It goes without saying that libel laws should exist. People shouldn't be able to write whatever they wish about others. But it is simple - insanely simple - to construct an effective libel law. The Americans, to their credit, already have it. You merely safeguard writing that is in the public interest and without malice (malice in this case refers to the legal term whereby it is written without wilful disregard for the truth).

Today, the Liberal Democrats proudly voted to create a policy dedicated to ending Britain's libel laws. But there is pitifully little coming from the big two parties on this issue. Why? Because big money counts in parliament too, as lobbying firms and the wealthy jealously safeguard their god-given rights to ensure the plebs don't get a say.

Feudalism lives in the UK today. And like a cancer, we spread it about the world.

The views expressed in politics.co.uk's comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.