In the coming months, I’d like to build up the conversation in this area and think about how we might approach some of these issues. If you’d like to be part of this informal online ‘working group’ please consider joining the Help Me Investigate challenge at this link (request membership here), or discussing via the OJB Facebook group.

Paul Bradshaw created this LinkedIn group as “a place for people to more openly discuss how to take this forward”.

My post for the OJB provoked quite a lively debate. Jim Hawkins (@jiminthemorning on Twitter), a radio presenter for BBC Shropshire, argued that extended discussion was unnecessary. Others, such as Paul Bradshaw and Philip John, disagreed.

Hawkins said, for example:

If you know the law, you know whether or not you’re in the clear. Sure, not defaming someone doesn’t protect you from being accused of defamation; but being confident that you’ve not defamed someone means you don’t have to run up a legal bill. I’ve been telling myself not to defame people – or to allow people to be defamed, a daily risk on live speech radio – every day for thirty years, and that’s worked just fine so far.

(…)

Judith’s idea of a support network for people who need advice is a good one; no-one could dispute that. But people who are prepared to publish should be prepared to know the law too.

I agree with his last point, but think that there needs to be wider communication of the issues. My research has not extended to social network users, but I’d be fascinated to know how many understand libel and contempt of court law. I disagree, however, that the grey areas are simple to navigate, or that defamation law poses so few problems.

• Read the full discussion here

Update: David Banks, co-author of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists added this on the OJB post:

I’m all for greater legal knowledge, well I would be wouldn’t I?

But sad to say that does not forestall legal action. If the law were as clear cut as some here are suggesting, then an awful lot of libel lawyers would be out of business.

Many publishers have learnt to their cost that the truth can be expensive if you cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the High Court. Libel claimants know this and the deck is so stacked in their favour, and the danger of loss so expensive, that the mere threat of an action prevents publication. That’s the chilling effect.