In all the excitement of coalition building and the breaking out of peace and harmony between former political rivals it is interesting to see what is being said about libel reform and free speech issues. We mentioned last week that libel reform campaigners were lamenting the fact that two of their champions (Dr Harris and Ms Cash) were not elected on 7 May. But they will be pleased to see that the issue has not been forgotten. The new Con/Lib Coalition Government (the first since 1922) has published the full text of its “Coalition Agreement” and libel reform gets a mention. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: May 2010 (Page 3 of 4)
President Obama has nominated his solicitor general, former Harvard Professor Elena Kagan, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Her nomination has not been uncontroversial. There is full coverage on Scot US Blog – which has the reactions of politicians and of nineteen different interest groups from “Alliance for Justice” to “People for the American Way”. Continue reading
In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest. This was first posted on 16 March 2010 and is the first part of a post in which Mark Thomson and Nicola McCann discuss the law and practice of harassment as applied to the media.
In recent years, it has become clear that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the “PFHA”), provides a much wider range of protection for victims of disturbing behaviour by others than was originally thought, it having first been designed to curb the activities of stalkers. In fact, in view of its subsequent wide interpretation, it is increasingly recognised as being, along with the Data Protection Act 1998, an “Article 8” statute, as its purpose is to protect an individual’s private life against the intrusion of others. Continue reading
The “right of reply” has been under discussion in the freedom of expression context for a long time. Such a right would mean that if inaccurate information is published about someone in the media then, in certain conditions, that person has the right to have an answer published in the same medium where the original statements were published. This is seen by some commentators as way of improving public access to information and of ensuring the plurality of opinions published in the press.
The Strasbourg and international case law shows that that the right to freedom of information can now properly be described as a “human right” – an essential aspect of the right to freedom of expression. This is understandable, both in terms of the standard formulation of freedom of expression as including a right to “receive” information and in practical terms. Without access to information, many other human rights such the right to private and family life or to effective access to the Courts cannot be effectively exercised. The promotion and defence of the rights to freedom of expression, privacy and access to court directly and necessarily involves the establishment and exercise of the fundamental human right to access to information. Continue reading
In this regular feature we draw attention to the last week’s law and media news and next week’s upcoming events. If readers have any news or events which they would like to draw attention to please add them by way of comments on this post. We are particularly interested in forthcoming events which readers are interested in publicising.
News
The general election is over. It has, perhaps inevitably, shown the British press at its partisan worst. And there will be more to come: as Roy Greenslade says on his blog “watch out Clegg, the pro-Tory press is on your case“. Charlie Beckett has an interesting post entitled “How do you report a hung parliament?” Continue reading
On 5 and 6 May 2010 Mr Justice Tugendhat heard an interesting strike out application in the case of Hays plc v Jonathan Hartley. The defendant was seeking to strike out the claim on the basis of the Jameel jurisdiction or alternatively on the basis that the claimant had a “dominant collateral motive”. The claimant was, in turn, seeking to strike out the defence of qualified privilege. The case raises interesting issues as to the developing strike out jurisdiction in libel cases and the operation of the defence of qualified privilege in relation to the activities of those who sell stories to the press. Continue reading
The cautious approach of the European Court of Human Rights to freedom of information can be contrasted with the approach of other international bodies. In its very first session in 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 59(I), stating,
“Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and … the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.”
This view has been repeated by United Nations bodies on a number of occasions over subsequent decades.
Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information: Part 1 The European Convention – Hugh Tomlinson QC
Introduction
In contrast to modern human rights instruments, the European Convention on Human Rights does not contain any express right to freedom of information. This has often been identified as an important weakness in the Convention. However, the position is changing: the Convention is a “living instrument” and recent case law suggests that, in accordance with international trends, the Convention may be evolving its own “right to freedom of information” as a fact of the right to freedom of expression in Article 10 of the Convention. In the first part of this post we consider the position under Article 10. The second part will deal with the trends in international law and other jurisdictions. In the third part we will consider the present position in English law. Continue reading
The participants in World Press Freedom Day on Monday 3 May 2010 (see our earlier post), have adopted a “Brisbane Declaration” on freedom of information. The declaration draws attention to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration (which, in similar terms to Article 10) includes both freedom of expression and the right to “receive information”. It “reaffirms” that the right to information “is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression” and defines the right to information as “the right of everyone to access information held by public bodies at all levels“. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑