It’s not just a matter of excessive costs (and, tbh I sympathise with Naomi Campbell: her health is nobody’s business but her own): its that certain issues should not be in the courts at all. The courts should have no jurisdiction over settling science disputes, for instance: that’s not how science precedes. Nor should the courts decide on artistic merit in censorship cases.

Shatterface,

I tend to agree in principle, but considering law is an area where I believe the state monopoly is essential, could you tell me how you believe society should work out cases of censorship or even the Simon Singh case – which if something similiar had been said about say Chiropodists (n.b. for the anti-Chiropody fringe out there, I am assuming there is scientific evidence for chiropody working as advertised) would have indeed been a libel of a profession. The only other option I can see is some form of public vote, which would be a lot worse (the point of law is to protect liberty; democracy, as with Swiss minarets, does not do this).

I think that this is probably a sensible judgement though (albeit I’ve only skimmed it) – and from a free-market point of view, I think it is fully justifiable in that there is no marketplace of courts (I doubt even the most rabid free-marketeer wants the nightmare of conflicting jurasdictions as this is often the basis for wars…), so lawyers fees are intrinsically tied into a state-run monopoly and are therefore liable (only in the case of court hearings) to be regulated.

‘I tend to agree in principle, but considering law is an area where I believe the state monopoly is essential, could you tell me how you believe society should work out cases of censorship…’

I don’t believe in censorship other than extreme cases like child pornography which is actual child abuse and therefore not a free speech issue.

‘… or even the Simon Singh case – which if something similiar had been said about say Chiropodists (n.b. for the anti-Chiropody fringe out there, I am assuming there is scientific evidence for chiropody working as advertised) would have indeed been a libel of a profession.’

You can’t libel a profession. Simon Singh’s criticism of homeopathy was so mild as to make a mockery of the law – he called homeopathy *bogus*, for gods sake. Had he explicitly called homeopathy *fraud* thats still a matter for science to decide, not the courts.

‘The only other option I can see is some form of public vote, which would be a lot worse (the point of law is to protect liberty; democracy, as with Swiss minarets, does not do this).’

The Swiss minaret vote just illustrates that there are issues of liberty where democracy should back off as well as the courts: democracy without libert is just a tyranny of numbers.

‘I think that this is probably a sensible judgement though (albeit I’ve only skimmed it) – and from a free-market point of view, I think it is fully justifiable in that there is no marketplace of courts’

But there *is* a marketplace of courts – which is why libel litigants choose British courts over everywhere else.

@Shatterface #3:

“But there *is* a marketplace of courts – which is why libel litigants choose British courts over everywhere else.”

Do you have some numbers on that? How much of a problem is libel tourism?