Not exact matches
The House of Lords have passed the Defamation Act, after a three - year campaign calling
for the
reform of Britain's
libel laws.
Libel reform campaigners, anxious
for progress, understandably pressing
for great change, do a disservice to the campaign if they focus their ire on the people who rejected the ill - conceived proposals, hurriedly presented yesterday in Committee Room 12 of the House of Commons.
Overall, it seems to me that the LD defence of «achieving what we could with the power we had» is probably quite defensible on civil liberties, on green issues, on political
reform; on
libel reform, perhaps the EU
for now, and perhaps other issues.
There are calls
for reforms to British
libel laws after researchers were sued in the United Kingdom
for discussing or writing about controversial matters.
David Willetts, the U.K. science minister, called the proposed legislation «good news
for science,» but some scientific advocates of
libel reform have so far reacted cautiously.
Wilmshurst, a U.K. citizen, is one of a group of scientists and science reporters whose legal troubles have served as a rallying point
for libel -
reform advocates.
Casey would go on the next year to accuse news anchor - turned - teacher quality
reform activist Campbell Brown (along with several other reformers) of committing «the equivalent of a blood
libel» against teachers
for daring to expose the complicity of the AFT's Big Apple local (and that of the national union) in keeping criminally abusive teachers on the city's payroll.
A year ago, when the
Libel Reform Campaign was launched only the Liberal Democrats strongly endorsed the need
for change.