The Telegraph responds

The Daily Telegraph has issued a statement on the Galloway libel verdict:

We are naturally disappointed by this judgment, which we believe is a blow to the principle of freedom of expression in this country. We will be seeking leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

The Daily Telegraph published genuine documents that emanated from the highest levels of the Iraqi government and raised questions about the activities of Mr Galloway, a British Member of Parliament.

If, as we understand the Court to have held, English law offers no real protection to newspapers that publish documents which raise such important questions about the conduct of an elected Member of Parliament, then freedom of expression is an illusion.
[...]
It has never been The Daily Telegraph's case to suggest that the allegations contained in the documents are true. These documents were published by us because their contents raised very important questions at a crucial stage of the war against Iraq. The Daily Telegraph did not and could not perform a detailed investigation into their contents. Newspapers have neither the power nor the resources to carry out such an investigation in a war-torn country. The Iraq Survey Group took over 18 months to investigate the abuse of the "oil-for-food" programme.

When we published the documents we did so believing that their contents were important, should be made public and would in due course be investigated by the proper authorities. The Daily Telegraph will co-operate fully with the Parliamentary Commissioner's inquiry.

If a newspaper publishes a story it knows to be false, or was wilfully blind to evidence it may be false, I can see the argument for a defamation verdict. But at Galloway's trial, the judge was not obligated to look into the truth or fiction of the Telegraph's stories, and he made no ruling on it. (He did rule that the paper did not do enough to verify the documents, a fact the Telegraph will likely try to challenge on appeal.)

In the United States and Canada, where freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, the key issue is whether an allegedly defamatory story is true. In Great Britain, the key issue is whether the subject's reputation was damaged. I generally enjoy British newspapers more than North American ones, so I find this verdict - and the principles from which it came - deeply disturbing.

And I still believe the story is true. (If it is debunked, I'll note it here.)

Update: David Frum: "From an American point of view, here’s the most astounding thing about George Galloway’s libel action against the Daily Telegraph...Galloway never challenged the authenticity of these documents."

In other European freedom-of-expression news, Dutch Muslim groups are suing MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali - writer of Theo van Gogh's Submission - to keep her from making a sequel, and from "making unnecessarily hurtful or offensive remarks, or blasphemous statements, against Islam." (via LGF)

Update II: still more, from Johann Hari.

Posted by damian at December 3, 2004 07:17 AM