The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
It has been more than two months since we last rounded up the US Freedom of Expression and Media Law news. Apologies to our readers, in the US in particular, for the delay and for the cases and stories we have missed.
The most high profile First Amendment decision of the year so far was Snyder v Phelps (2 March, 2011). The case Continue reading
The Court of Human Rights will give judgment in the case of Mosley v United Kingdom on Tuesday 10 May 2011. The application was heard on Tuesday 11 January 2011. The central question was whether the United Kingdom had a positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to protect Mr Mosley’s privacy by providing for a legal duty on the News of the World to warn him in advance of publication in order to allow him to seek an injunction. Continue reading
News International’s PR team must be thrilled that the super injunction has pushed phone hacking out of the national headlines. More than one media commentator has suggested that the newspapers – and not just Murdoch’s – are happy to divert attention away from that particular scandal.
In part one, I examined the number of newspaper stories about phone hacking at Continue reading
The Prime Minister said last week that he was “uneasy” about the development of a privacy law by judges based on the European Convention when this should be a matter for parliament. In our contribution to the continuing debate on this issue we are re-posting an updated version of this series from last year on the way ahead for privacy law. Part 1 looked at the outline of the new law. This part considers the historical background.
Introduction
The “new law of privacy” has not been uncontroversial. Over the past week the press has complained bitterly about “gagging orders” and “judge made law”. These criticisms are not new. Continue reading
“Super-injunctions” are in the news. The “Committee to examine super-injunctions” established by the Master of the Rolls in April 2010 is due to report shortly. There have been nearly 200 newspaper stories referring to “super-injunctions” in the past week alone. The latest concerns Andrew Marr “revealing” that he obtained a super-injunction. Commentators are united in their criticism of the practice of granting super-injunctions. There are many strange features of the “super-injunction” story but perhaps the strangest of all is the fact that they no longer exist. Continue reading
The Prime Minister has said that he is “uneasy” about the development of a privacy law by judges based on the European Convention when this should be a matter for parliament. In our contribution to the continuing debate on this issue we are re-posting an updated version of this series of posts from last year on the way ahead for privacy law.
Introduction
The “law of privacy” has been developed by the English Courts over the past decade. It is a common law development based on case law going back to the mid nineteenth century. 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.
News
The weeks media and law news has been dominated by “privacy gag madness”. The press have fulminated against privacy injunctions – without actually suggesting that any of them have been wrongly granted. No public interest in the publication of stories about the sex lives of celebrities has been suggested. Continue reading
The British Press is prone to periodic bouts of uncontrollable rage. It turns, from time to time, on a particular target and vents its fury. When these episodes take place, all pretence of “balance” or “argument” is left behind. Last week was the week of “privacy madness”. Continue reading
In a judgment given on 30 March 2011 in the case of Robins v Kordowski [2011] EWHC 981 (QB)) Mr Justice Henriques granted yet another interim injunction against Mr Rick Kordowski, the proprietor of the “Solicitors from Hell” website to prevent the continued publication of defamatory allegations against a solicitor. The injunction was also granted against the individual who had posted the material in question, Tim Smee – who had been the opposing party in litigation in which the claimant, Mr Stephen Robins, had acted. In the course of his judgment the judge urged the lawyers’ professional bodies to take action against the notorious website. Continue reading
When the prime minister criticises judges, he tends to speak from his gut. The prospect of prisoners being given the vote by European judges makes him feel “physically sick”. And now, he is “a little uneasy” about the rise of “a sort of privacy law without Parliament saying so“.
David Cameron’s use of visceral language may reflect what many in the general public (as well as PR man Max Clifford) are feeling Continue reading
© 2025 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑