The British government is seeking public input on the multiple-publication rule - currently in force - under which each publication of defamatory material can form the basis of a new defamation claim.

Comments for and against adopting a single-publication rule are being collected via Internet through December 16, 2009, due to the proliferation of online archives. TechCrunch suggests that the multi-publication rule promotes "libel tourism," or forum shopping, in which parties and actions with virtually no ties to the United Kingdom bring suit in that jurisdiction on the basis of Internet access there.

In the single versus multiple debate, UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw has said: "Existing defamation law needs to be updated so that it is fit for the modern age."

Further illustrating the point of libel suit abuse in the United Kingdom is the case of Simon Singh, who was sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for an article he published in The Guardian newspaper last year. In the article, Singh argued that there is no evidence for some of the claims that the BCA makes about the health benefits of visiting a chiropractor. Maintaining the truth of his statements, Singh refused to apologise or retract and was sued personally by the BCA. In reporting the incident, The New York Times observed that, regardless of the outcome of any such suit, its defense can ruin an individual journalist financially, intimidating many more into failing to report the truth.

In March this year, The (London) Times took a test case to the European court of human rights arguing that the multiple publication rule was so onerous a burden for newspapers in the internet age that it had a "chilling effect" on their right to free speech. Despite dismissing the case, ECHR judges nevertheless noted the need for restraints.

"While an aggrieved applicant must be afforded a real opportunity to vindicate his right to reputation, libel proceedings brought against a newspaper after a significant lapse of time may well, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, give rise to a disproportionate interference with press freedom under Article 10."