In today's Guardian, Siobhain Butterworth greeted Lord Lester's libel reform proposals with something less than enthusiasm, saying his defamation bill should be more radical.
I agree with her, and I set out some of the reasons in my London Evening Standard column today.
That isn't to say that it is wholly bad. Far from it. If the bill is enacted in roughly the shape Lester has proposed, it will make for more user-friendly defences.
It will allow journalists greater latitude to make defamatory statements or to be inaccurate as long as they can show they acted responsibly in the public interest.
But, overall, the bill it is too pragmatic. For example, why should we still be saddled with a law that reverses the burden of proof?
