Since the United States signed the Speech Act into a law, it became urgent for the UK to change its own libel tourism laws. Many feel that UK libel laws restricted freedom of speech, and that they should follow a more liberal libel model. Yet as judges in the UK rush to relax the laws, the Tory-Lib Dem coalition government is resistant to action without a healthy debate. The justice minister Lord McNally commented "If we are going to have a privacy law, it should be openly debated and freely decided by parliament."

A debate has definitely ensued. Under current UK libel laws, it is easy to sue news organization for defamation. This leads to a lot of arbitrary cases, and most of the verdicts have been against newspapers. Concerns have arisen that restrictive libel laws damages investigative journalism and the integrity of the press. Conversely, Carl Garder from the Guardian point out that trends in the media lean towards entertainment, and not investigative journalism. If libel laws become too liberal, celebrity lives will be further exposed and the integrity of the press will deteriorate further.

Garder notes that in celebrity court cases, libel laws are recurrently presented as counterproductive to the principles of free speech. "To understand what's at stake here, we need to notice the types of cases that are actually causing concern in press circles. They aren't those involving politics, corruption or public money. On the contrary, they more often involve celebrity, sport and sex," Garder states. Though does society have anything to gain from reading this information? Garder responses with a forceful no, stating the trends of the media as leaning towards the commercial end.

Specifically superinjunctions are in question, where newspapers would be prevented from publishing certain stories. Lord McNally commented on the need to change the superinjunctions, explaining they were "something that has grown up by stealth, rather than by considered desire of parliament." When revising the libel law, parliament will need to strike a balance between permitting free speech for investigative journalism while keep the lives of high-profile celebrities safe from tabloid trends.

This balance between too much information and the right of the public to information is a hard line to walk. This is a delicate matter, ranging not just from commercial interests but also to interest of national security. Reporters Without Boarders demonstrated this when they responded to the Wikileaks' Afghan War Diaries. They supported the release of the documents, however they were compelled to criticize the release of private names and information that could endanger private lives.

"Raising the question, as we did, of the danger of releasing certain sensitive data does not in any way constitute incitement to censorship or, less still, support for the war," Reporters Without Boarders states. "Is it wrong to point out that Wikileaks' recent actions could backfire not only on itself but also on the independent researchers and journalists who cover these subjects online?"

In matters of freedom of speech and integrity in journalism, where is the tipping point of too much information?

Sources: The Guardian, The Wire