Last week, the government quietly killed the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill. This was a Bill that would have partly defanged Britain’s draconian libel laws by giving courts power to suppress such so-called SLAPPs. It would have applied to writing or journalism about matters in the public interest, in particular allegations of wrongdoing or threats to health or the environment. Under it a defamation claim brought in respect of such writing could be swiftly dismissed with costs, provided the judge was not persuaded that the claim was more likely than not to succeed, and was satisfied that it had been brought more to silence a tiresome critic than genuinely to protect anyone’s good name.

On one level this rowback is a pity, not to mention a slap in the face for journalism. On the other hand, there may be a blessing in disguise. SLAPPs are actually only part of the problem with English libel laws, and a fairly small part at that. Given that this is likely to be the last chance for some time to reform them, we now have an opportunity to push for something much more radical.

Essentially, the SLAPP Bill dealt with one problem. If a journalist or writer wanted to write about a major fraud, or the actions of an oligarch, or some threat to health or the environment, he and his publisher would regularly face a stiff letter from lawyers for those likely to be named, helpfully reminding them that they risked big damages and that the expense, and trouble, of defending libel proceedings even successfully could be crippling. Some writers held out: but many caved, whether from disinclination to hazard their assets or because their publishers demanded it. The laudable aim of the Bill was to stymie such tactics by oligarchs and others like them.

All this hides a much more serious difficulty over press freedom

However, the effect would have been fairly little. SLAPPs actually form a quite small proportion of English defamation proceedings. Furthermore, the Bill’s protection was also limited. It applied only to clearly abusive claimant behaviour; and the freedom of speech it protected was only the crabbed version found in the European Convention on Human Rights. It was fairly clearly intended as a sop to environmental and health activists and other radical journalists.

All this hides a much more serious difficulty over press freedom. Twenty years ago most news and commentary came from a formidably profitable (or well-financed) mainstream media and publishing industry. Today, however, much of the best writing, and sometimes the juiciest scoops, come from smaller providers, online platforms and niche publishers and magazines.

The mainstream media of old had the money and clout to face down and if necessary fight libel claims from politicians, celebrities and other members of the great and the good who objected to uncomplimentary copy about them. The same cannot be said of the new media, often run on a small scale and a limited budget. The latter also face a further, often unnoticed, handicap: they cannot afford the extensive professional verification and cross-checking arrangements which the courts have said are necessary if a report, albeit inaccurate in fact, is to attract privilege as a report on a matter of public interest.

The solution … is not only anti-SLAPP laws but a wholesale cutting back of libel law

The result is that well-financed celebrities and political operators have gained the whip hand. You only have to look in recent years at the ruinous libel award obtained last year by celebrity broadcaster Chris Packham against the small online magazine Country Squire over an article written in all good faith, and more recently the threats by millionaire Labour donor Dale Vince against the Guido Fawkes website and anyone else reproducing the story of his comments on Hamas. This is not good news for those who think the public needs to be informed. Even if convinced that what they say is true, small publishers now take a safety-first attitude towards anything disobliging concerning a possibly litigious public figure. Quite simply, they cannot afford the risk of doing anything else.

The solution, becoming more necessary by the week, is not only anti-SLAPP laws but a wholesale cutting back of libel law on the lines of the US “public figure” rule. Instead of the rule in England that a libel defendant must prove the truth of what he said, this provides that anyone substantially in the public eye, for whatever reason, can obtain libel damages only by proving that the defendant acted with malice — essentially, by knowingly publishing an untruth about them. The power of this weapon in the hands of a small publisher or amateur journalist is incalculable: faced with a complaint from a politician or celebrity, he can bat it away with a lordly “Sue me if you dare: you’ll have to prove malice.” This is a protection for free speech and the public’s right to know that is well worth the sacrifice of a few bigwigs’ amour propre and the risk of the occasional inaccuracy.

We need this here. This administration may, of course, take the view that anything of the sort is entirely unacceptable and that sleeping dogs should be left to slumber, if only because currently the situation suits it just fine. After all, it allows ministers and MPs, and the members of the great and the good who don’t like the idea of upstart media they can’t quietly nobble, to make life discreetly difficult for would-be public critics. But that might be short-sighted. Political times change; and when they do, current ministers might actually warm to the idea of maverick media with the right to publish what they please, and protection from suit provided they act in good faith. It’s never too early to do some prudent planning for an uncertain future. Come to think of it, it might even mend a few bridges with the existing media; and the government could certainly do with that.