Legally silencing critics

There is a two-tier system, where the rich are more able to exercise their right to free speech, or right to privacy, than the rest of us.

Even when things are true, the rich can use the expensive and long drawn out legal system to prevent negative stories being printed about them. Media outlets become so fearful of legal action that they may avoid printing stories about people with deep pockets who can drag cases through court. Even if the case is baseless, it can still intimidate and prevent free speech. The UK Government acknowledged the damage the threat of legal action by rich people has to democracy and to free speech.

Using libel laws to stop journalists expressing their opinion

James Dyson, British billionaire from the vacuum industry, launched a libel claim against a Mirror journalist. The author of the article was critical of Dyson's decision to campaign for Brexit and then move Dyson's head office from the UK to Singapore. Dyson lost the libel case in 2023 as the article's author was protected under free speech.

Threatening legal action to prevent facts becoming public

Public figures with a lot of money can use the legal system to intimidate those with fewer resources. Those with limited knowledge of the legal system can be easily put off reporting facts because they are scared by the more powerful party.

Michelle Mone

Michelle Mone, Conservative Member of the House of Lords, used her political connections to make money for her family during the COVID pandemic. She convinced the Government to spend £200 million on PPE from her husband's newly formed company PPE Medpro. The PPE was unusable yet the contract made £60 million profit.

When questioned about this suspicious arrangement and that the company was subject to criminal investigation, Michelle Mone lied to the media that she had any involvement in PPE Medpro. Her lawyers threatened journalists questioning her, such as the Financial Times' Jim Pickard, with legal action if they printed the story, even though it was true

Michelle Mone has even threatened legal action for far more frivilous matters.

Russell Brand

Former comedian and current online commentator Russell Brand has been accused by numerous women of sexual assault over many years.

Brand has also been accused of using attack dog lawyers to threaten legal action to try and silence women who wanted to come forward. Media outlets who have wanted to report of the story have also been threatened by lawyers to stop them reporting.

SLAPP suits

The Governement defines SLAPP suits as “an abuse of the legal process, where the primary objective is to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent via improper means”. The goal of this type of legal action, brought on by someone with a lot of resources is to prevent lawful investigations and discussions about matters of public interest, such as corruption or wrongdoing. They are more often baseless.

Solicitors in the UK are not allowed to pursue this line of legal action. If they are found to do so, they can face disciplinary action. Like former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi's lawyer, when they threatened legal action against Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer/advise who reported on Zahawi's dodgy tax affairs in 2023.

Injunctions and super injunctions

Rich people can take out injunctions to protect themselves. Breach of injunctions include fines or even jail time. These are described as "buying your own laws".

This report by Novara Media describes how an activist went to jail despite not breaking a criminal law. The person occupied a woodland area that was under threat due to the building of the HS2 trainline. But the owners of the area took out an injunction, meaning that an activist did jail time for trespass. The person's right to protest was overridden by a rich person who wanted to protect a bit of land.

Paying accusers off to prevent legal action

Rich can do despicable things, and use their money to not face consequences of their actions, or at least have their day in court.

Prince Andrew, via his mum

The most obvious example of this was when Prince Andrew was being sued for allegedly raping a child. Rather than fighting the allegations against a person he claims to never have met, instead he paid $12,000,000 (some of which came from The Queen) to settle the case out of court.

Wealthy and powerful keeping their names hidden from media

Open any billionaire-backed newspaper or visit their websites, it won't take long to find targeted harassment of an individual. These people do not have the ability to fight back so they are easy to pick on.

However, rich media outlets do not like to be treated the way they treat others. In March 2023, numerous celebrities taken the company that owns the Daily Mail to court regarding allegations of phone hacking. The Mail's lawyers invoked the Human Rights Act, a law the Mail opposes, to protect the identity of the 73 journalists accused of illegal activity to get stories.

In May 2023, Tory donor Javad Marandi's foreign companies were part of a global money laundering investigation. He battled the BBC in court for 17 months to keep his name hidden. He eventually lost this.

It is not just the super rich who use the law to block unfavourable or damming information being printed. The UK Government have also been at it.