I am sure Seamus is being ironic since no one would actually believe in such an attack on freedom of expression... but then I'm indulging in irony now.

I had to read the post twice to confirm that he was talking about the land of the free, where I thought someone bringing a defamation action had to prove malice. Hence the libel tourists who head for the more litigant-friendly judicial climate of the UK to collect their windfalls or block free expression, or both.

There was a case from Northern Ireland of a Belfast jury awarding libel damages to a restaurateur who objected to a harsh review. It seemed preposterous at the time but I am not sure what happened on appeal. And didn't the winegrowers of Beaujolais bring a successful "class' action against a respected wine expert who said something highly uncomplimentary about one year's output?

Human nature being what it is, I realise some Mudcatters, in common with many other people, would applaud such events. The people vs the press and all that.

But you need only think about it for half a second to see how intellectually rotten it is. Unless, that is, you truly want a descent into something resembling fascism.

OK, as a working journalist, I have an axe or two to grind. But I approach such issues with as open a mind as I can: I would certainly grant automatic right of reply to aggrieved parties, even musicians attracting poor reviews. The detail of how such replies would be handled would need a lot of thought. I would also have some equivalent of the small claims courts so that all people, and not just the rich who can afford to risk heavy costs in the unlikely event of defeat, could bring actions where real damage - as opposed to annoyance - could be shown (and again as a journalist, I'd add the "with malice" proviso).

Or let's just settle for a bland, regimented society where no one, however well qualified or however entertaining a writer or speaker, may criticise anyone or anything except on pain of draconian punishment.