In all seriousness, I'm glad to see that stating the truth is a valid defense. But we should also remember that just because something is true, we don't have to state it verbally or commit it to paper or arrange it in electrons. I'd like to see a return to civility!
The Libel Reform Campaign has an initial summary assessment of the Defamation Bill [2].
From the Bill's summary [3]:
includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair comment.
Edit: add a couple of links
- The "responsible publication on matters of public interest" defence is now just "publication on matters of public interest", the requirement of responsibility is replaced by one that "the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest". This is good - the new requirement is conceptually simpler and easier to satisfy.
- There's now another new defence: "Peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journal etc." are now privileged.
Truth has always been an absolute defence; the Act doesn't change anything in that regard.
(Several of the 'new' defences are just codifications or tweaks of existing defences. I think the only completely new defence is the 'peer-reviewed statement in scientific or academic journals' one).
No, not always. In English common law truth was originally only a defense in civil libel cases. But it was possible to convict persons of criminal libel, even if the writings were proven true (since it was technically considered as being a breach of the peace as opposed to mere defamation).
So you couldn't recover all your costs in a case, and libel barristers are some of the highest earning. Losing a case meant you could be liable for part of the other side's fees, so you are easily looking at £100k+ when fighting a case.
So it became really easy for bullying threats of a lawsuit to shut down awkward speech. Not just in England, anything "published" in England - and there the courts consistently ruled incredibly broadly. So you had all sorts of dodgy foreigners using the English libel system to crush criticism abroad.