A week or so ago, Johann Hari gave a speech in which he said this:

“The real test of free speech is not if you support it when everyone is saying you’re great, but if you support it when people are saying something painful and humiliating about you.”

 

I agree. But if that’s what Hari thinks, why did he threaten to sue David T of Harry’s Place for defamation?

This is what David had written:

Basically, I think that bloggers and tabloid journalists are entitled to be a little bombastic and to get things wrong: as long as they’re happy to correct their errors when they become clear

However, should you aspire to be a serious academic commentator or non-tabloid journalist, a reputation for making things up should spell career death.

In the light of recent revelations, that seems a very relevant and gentle piece of advice. But in response, Hari wrote to him as follows:

“Hi – I’m perplexed by your post, which I’ve been informed by the Indie lawyers is libellous. I don’t have a reputation for “making things up”…

There are also a range of libellous comments on the blog implying that I do make things up. I have to insist these libellous comments are taken down immediately or I’ll have to take legal action. …”

Note the implied threat that the Independent as an institution was backing him. One of the problems with libel law as it stands is the sheer cost of proving yourself right. If a vexatious plaintiff has deep pockets they can silence almost any independent voice. David took down the post.

There’s more to be said about the specifics of this case but I’ll leave that to others. I just want to comment that Hari’s recent speech was right but his threat of libel action was wrong. I’m actually feeling a bit sorry for him, on a human level. He must be going through hell and, since he has a history of depression, I hope he’s being looked after by those who care for him. But this was a sordid piece of hypocrisy.

21. In Jameel, the Court of Appeal addressed abuse of process in the context of defamation in the following passages:

“40. We accept that in the rare case where a claimant brings an action for defamation in circumstances where his reputation has suffered no or minimal actual damage, this may constitute an interference with freedom of expression that is not necessary for the protection of the claimant’s reputation. In such circumstances the appropriate remedy for the defendant may well be to … seek to strike out the action as an abuse of process…”

For one reason or another, I find that fascinating.