YESTERDAY’S ruling is a dark day for freedom of speech with broad implications. The judge has applied the old-fashioned, anachronistic tenets of libel law to the fast-evolving medium of blogging, which recognises the democratisation of knowledge.

The internet is a valuable means of exchanging information, ideas and, yes, sometimes abuse. But anyone who reads an abusive web posting will treat it with the weight it deserves: very little. It is watercooler conversation that does no real damage.

The vibrancy of the internet could be under threat from frivolous actions. Will companies try to shut down so called “suck sites” where consumers rail against their experience of poor customer service? They are often abusive, but also informative.

The success of blogs is the ability people have to meet speech with more speech. We can put forward our own policies, dismiss ranters and attach links to sites promoting our views. The more forward-thinking judges have recognised this and denied internet plaintiffs because the case serves no useful purpose.

Libel actions should be about correcting a wrong, where one party is all-powerful and the other not. We should have a more egalitarian approach to how we impose libel law in cyberspace and not destroy the vibrancy of the internet.

• Mark Stephens is head of media law at Finer Stephens Innocent

Should libel laws be used to police chat rooms? Click here to have your say

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Alex Rider exclusive: Incident in Nice
• Green & confused: do energy-saving bulbs work?
• Let’s skip lunch, say the hungry generation