Internet Press Freedom Conference

Geoffrey Robertson Warns Censors Are just One Click away from
Stifling Press Freedom on the Internet
The Renown British Human Rights Advocate Entitled His Speech
“pressfreedom.com” at Internet conference In New York City

By M. Kalyanaraman

New York City, June 30, 2003 -- Geoffrey Robertson (link to his photo no. , one of the world’s most prominent human rights advocates, warned a trend allowing plaintiffs to sue Internet publishers in countries without a free press constitutes a serious threat to the free flow of news and information on the world wide web.

The noted British barrister and Queen’s Counsel --speaking at a Press Freedom on the Internet conference organized by the World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC) and the Communications and Media Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York-- said the number of plaintiffs suing publications which have online editions has increased as the publications were just one click away from anywhere in the world.

Geoffrey Robertson speaking at his "pressfreedom.com" lecture at the Press Freedom on the Internet conference in New York City.

Robertson said the Internet has made publishers cautious about the content they put on their online editions.

"One Internet hit in Victoria, Australia,” he said, “gives jurisdiction to courts in Victoria" over publications located in the United States, referring to a defamation case involving an article published by the Wall Street Journal that a plaintiff in that Australian province found libelous.

He pointed out courts in Australia, like 57 other countries in the British Commonwealth, follow the "English common law, which promotes reputation over free speech and where the burden of proof is on the publisher."

Citing the case of Boris Berezovsky, the Russian businessman, suing Forbes magazine and Richard Perle threatening to sue New Yorker magazine in England, Robertson said England was a popular choice for these plaintiffs.

Robertson said the "plaintiff-friendly" English common law was an "indelible part of the class system" in England, where reputations were all-important. He said the law has not evolved or changed much after World War II, unlike the First Amendment in the United States, which explicitly protects free speech.

Subsequent laws in England brought some improvements, he said, but journalists still have to disclose their sources to prove that their writings are reasonable.

Roberston said there have been some positive developments, including the capping of the money that plaintiffs can ask for as damages and the European Court of Human Rights’ reversing the burden of proof on publishers.

But he said politicians across the world have a vested interest in such laws and do not want to change them. Another danger, according to him, is when publications can be sued in 191 member states of the United Nations as they are just one click away from any of those nations on the Internet.

Robertson said the US government could go to the International Court of Justice to argue for first amendment as its sovereign right.

"But he current US regime does not favor international courts and the prospect is unlikely," he added, indicating that he favored applying the press laws of the country closest to the publication.

Robertson has sometimes used ingenuous methods to save publications tried under different national laws.

The government of President Robert Mugabe brought a case against Britain’s The Guardian newspaper because its critical articles could be seen on the Internet in Zimbabwe.

Describing the scene in Zimbabwe, Robertson recalled how the government lawyer took the judge to a place where 16 secret policemen were monitoring the Internet round the clock. But when they tried to click on the story on The Guardian web site, they could not find it because Robertson had advised the newspaper to remove the stories from its online edition. The judge finally threw out the case.

Robertson said there were many reasons to cherish the Internet, including its intrinsic capacity to bring out the truth. Unlike a partisan provincial newspaper, users make their own mind about the facts.

But, he said, it was a massive irony that the Internet, an engine of freeing up information, has brought to the fore new ways of suppressing the truth.