LETTER: `Right of reply' does not resolve disputes
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Adrian Jack
Sir: Walter Cairns's suggestion (Letters, 21 December) that libel actions be replaced by a statutory right of reply suffers from the grievous defect that the truth would never be established. The Sunday Times's allegation against David Ashby was that he was a hypocrite in speaking up for family values when he was a practising homosexual. Whether Mr Ashby was a practising homosexual is a matter of fact which (if disputed) can only ultimately be determined in a court of law.
One sympathises with Mr Ashby, because the evidence for his being a homosexual (at least on the basis of newspaper reports) seemed a little thin; but the jury decided that he was. It follows that the Sunday Times's attack on him was justified. Giving Mr Ashby a right of reply would not have resolved that important issue.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Jack
Barrister
London, EC4
22 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments