FOR two years The Herald and Scottish PEN, the freedom of expression organisation, have been campaigning for reform of Scotland’s antiquated defamation laws.

We believe that the current draconian rules are having a chilling effect on Scottish journalism. We know from colleagues, especially on smaller newspapers, that the rich and powerful are able to use even the threat of vexatious litigation to stop embarrassing truths being told.

This is serious enough. However, our campaign, called Freedom of Speech, is not, and has never been, solely about news organisations.

In this internet age, we have all become publishers. A careless tweet, a Tripadvisor review or a Facebook posting could take the individual into a costly court battle, even if that person is in the right.

It is not even necessary to have written the offending content. Ask Paulo Quadros. Last year we revealed that Mr Quadros was facing an action over the content of a local community’s Facebook page, which he moderated, after one critic took some posts to be defamatory speculation. Today we report that Andy Wightman, a land campaigner and journalist who is now a Green MSP, is facing a £750,000 potential lawsuit for something he wrote a year ago.

Mr Wightman has broken his silence on his ordeal, which today would have been over had he been fortunate enough to live under England’s more liberal system.

That is because English authorities have imposed a one-year time bar on such actions.

Crucially, Mr Wightman, who has been supported by Scottish PEN, did not publish his allegedly defamatory comments in a newspaper. His remarks were made in a blog. He does not have the commercial and legal support of a large news-gathering machine such as the BBC or The Herald.

There are moves afoot to reform Scotland’s defamation laws. This is, of course, welcome. But we believe any change must not just be for the benefit of traditional journalists. New laws must also protect campaigners, bloggers and even tweeters who provide information in the public interest.