Court victory for freedom of speech

KEZIA Dugdale’s defamation victory is an important ruling for equality rights, the freedom of the Press and standing up to bullying.

A defeat would have meant a gay politician had been censured for calling out a comment she genuinely believed to be homophobic.

The implications for freedom of speech would have been chilling.

Instead, the verdict has reconfirmed the necessity of a vibrant free Press that provides a platform for a range of challenging opinions and views. It’s a precious cornerstone of democracy that should always be protected.

Sheriff Nigel Ross’s judgment also contains some helpful advice on how we should all conduct political debate.

Wings Over Scotland’s Stuart Campbell is an abrasive and abusive presence on the Scottish political scene.

His online belligerence is a growing feature of politics across the globe in an era when generating social media anger can be a lucrative business model.

Campbell has a band of supporters in Scotland, as illustrated by the success of his regular fundraising drives.

But his type of aggressive, take-no-prisoners rhetoric is toxic for calm and rational debate.

The example at the centre of this case – using Scottish Secretary David Mundell’s sexuality to mock his son’s public speaking – is typical of Campbell’s contributions to public discourse.

The irony of such a combative character suing for defamation was not lost on Sheriff Ross, who concluded: “He has chosen insult and condemnation as his style. He has received these in return.”

Sheriff Ross concluded his judgment with a plea for civility in public debate.

He said: “Persuasive arguments are not improved by insults. In a corrosive environment, only the foolhardy will change their minds, apologise, compromise or co-operate. These are things successful debate requires.”

Scottish politics would be much better off if everyone involved took those words to heart.