Crispin Blunt MP

Ministry of

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Justice
102 Petty France
London SW1 H 9AJ

JUSTICE

T 020 3334 3555

F 020 3334 3669
E general.queries@justice.gsi.gov.uk
www.justice.gov.uk

Owen Smith MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OM
Our ref: MC329270

l ' August 2012

Libel Reform
Thank you for your letter of 19 June to the
behalf of your constituent Mr Bishop, in
provisions in the Defamation Bill. Mr Bishop
directly to my colleague Jonathan Djanogly.
recess period.

Secretary of State for Justice, sent on

relation to internet "trolling" and the
has also sent emails along similar lines
I am replying as Duty Minister in the

It may helpful if I begin by explaining that we have introduced the Defamation Bill
because we believe that the law in this area is currently not in the right place, and
that a rebalancing is needed to secure more effective protection for freedom of
speech and to stop the threat of long and costly libel proceedings being used to stifle
responsible investigative reporting and scientific and academic debate.
At the same time, it is also important that people who have been unjustly defamed
are not left without effective remedies where their reputation has been seriously
harmed. Our core aim in this Bill is to get the balance right, so that free speech is not
unjustifiably impeded by actual or threatened libel proceedings, while ensuring that
people who have been libelled are able to protect their reputation.
In relation to the internet, Clause 5 of the Defamation Bill establishes a new
procedure that can be followed by website operators hosting user-generated content
on receipt of a complaint about defamatory material posted on their website.
Provided that website operators comply with this procedure, they will have a defence
against a civil action for defamation. The procedure focuses on putting complainants
in touch with the author of allegedly defamatory material so that they can take action
against the author and bring defamation proceedings, if the matter cannot be
resolved by other means. Website operators will not be under any duty to follow the
procedure, however, if they choose not to then they will forfeit the defence that the
clause provides.
However, this clause only relates to defamatory material, and as Mr Bishop correctly
points out much of the behaviour that can be labelled as "trolling" does not relate to

incidents of defamation. Therefore it wouldn't be appropriate to consider the

suggestions that Mr Bishop makes in his letter in the context of the Defamation Bill.
In addition, Mr Bishop's letter also refers to section 127 of the Communications Act
2003, which creates an offence of sending or causing to be sent:
"by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other
matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing
character".
The Government agrees with Mr Bishop that Section 127 is already an effective tool
to prosecute people engaged in "trolling" and has been used to prosecute instances
of cyber-bullying, hate crime, homophobic crime, incitement to violence, crimes
committed by animal extremists, domestic violence and other sorts of threatening
and abusive behaviour. Other offences, under statutes such as the Malicious
Communications Act 1988, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Protection from
Harassment Act 1997, may also apply in relation to offensive behaviour on the
internet depending on the circumstances.
I enclose a copy of this reply for you to send to Mr Bishop should you wish to do so.

CRISPIN BLUNT

Page 2