LIBEL AND LIBEL. Mr Fisher's Pamphlet.

Free Lance, Volume I, Issue 9, 1 September 1900, Page 6

LIBEL AND LIBEL. Mr Fisher's Pamphlet.

THE opinion was expressed by the Fkee Lance a week or two ago that the Members of the House who are most anxious to limit freedom of speech on the part of the Press are men who are accustomed to put little or no restraint upon their own speech. In other words, they are men who, from the safe and convenient shelter of Parliamentary privilege, do not scruple to attack the characters of their fellow citizens in terms that would bring them well within reach of the law if their sentiments were uttered outside Parliament. * # • No better illustration of our argument can be furnished than the pamphlet that was being so freely distributed in the streets of Wellington a day or two ago, and which contained a verbatim report of Mr George Fisher's speech on the Libel Bill, extracted from Hansard. Passing by the general thread of Mr Fisher's argument, which is couched in strong and expressive language, there appears in the body of the speech a reference to one individual on the outer fringe of journalism, who is named and characterised as a ruffian, and who, in the opinion of Mr Fisher, ought to be serving time in gaol. • • * Now, we know nothing of the facts upon which Mr Fisher condemns this individual. But we are satisfied that there is not one newspaper in the country that would employ such strong language concerning anyone, be he good, bad, or indifferent. And yet Mr Fisher talks about newspapers wanting license to attack people at their own sweet will. License, forsooth ? What is the license that any newspaper would exercise compared

with the license of this pamphlet of Mr Fisher's ? And Mr Fisher pretends to be solicitous of the liberties of the people, and eager to protect them from mild newspaper criticism, even while he talks of one of the people'as a ruffian, and says he ought to be doing time in gaol. » • * But stay ! Does not the publication of this pamphlet exceed the limits of privilege? It is an open question whether even Hansard is privileged to publish comments upon an individual couched in such language. But it is absolutely clear that the protection of privilege does not extend to the printing and circulation of such a speech in pamphlet form, and, unless we are mistaken, both Mr Fisher and the Government Printer, whose name appears upon the imprint, have laid themselves open to an action for libel. Singularly enough, the very principle that has been abused in this case — the right to publish a correct report of a speech, even though it contained libellous matter — was the vital principle in Mr Carncross's Bill, which Mr Fisher and his friends succeeded in defeating.