The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
It’s a serious business, media responsibility. How do you strike the right balance between personal privacy and freedom to publish stories of public interest?
That doesn’t mean, of course, that the subject has to be approached with po-faced solemnity. So here’s an alternative approach: Continue reading
The final week of module one brought the Leveson Inquiry to an explosive, if temporary, conclusion. The last witness to appear before the chairman was Daily Mail editor in chief Paul Dacre whose dispute with actor Hugh Grant dominated the proceedings. I wrote about this in more detail on Inforrm on Friday. Continue reading
In a judgment handed down on 18 January 2012, the Court of Appeal in Ontario recognised, for the first time, that the common law of Ontario included a free-standing tort of intrusion on seclusion. In Jones v. Tsige (2012 ONCA 32) the Court overturned the decision of the first instance judge striking out the claim on the basis that there was no tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and entered judgment for the plaintiff with damages of Can$10,000. Continue reading
Paul Dacre, notoriously shy editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail, made no secret of his dislike of the Leveson Inquiry witness box when he was called to give evidence not once but twice this week.
On Monday he told the chairman, who suggested the editor would rather deal with his evidence in one go than return: “That’s the understatement of the year, your Honour”. Continue reading
The decision in Von Hannover v Germany (No. 2) is the second of two given on 7 February 2012 by the Grand Chamber concerning the balancing of privacy and freedom of expression. There was a case comment on Axel Springer here.) In a unanimous decision, the Grand Chamber found that Germany had not failed in its obligation to respect the applicants’ Article 8 rights when it refused to grant an injunction against the publication of a photograph taken of Princess Caroline and her husband while on holiday at a ski resort in Switzerland. Continue reading
“[Nick] Davies’s work…has gained no traction at all in the rest of Fleet Street, which operates under a system of omerta so strict that it would secure a nod of approbation from the heads of the big New York crime families” Peter Oborne, The Observer, April 2010“There seemed to be some omerta principle at work that meant that not a single other national newspaper thought this could possibly be worth an inch of newsprint” Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, Newsweek, 2011. Continue reading
On 7 February 2012 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Human Rights found that the Article 10 rights of the publisher of the German tabloid, “Bild” had been violated by injunctions granted by the German courts (Axel Springer v Germany, App No 39954/08). The tabloid had been prevented from publishing articles about the arrest and conviction of a well known television actor for possession of cocaine. By 12 votes to 5, the Grand Chamber found there was a violation and awarded the publisher “just satisfaction covering the damages and costs it had had to pay in the domestic proceedings and in Strasbourg. Continue reading
The conviction of Paul Chambers for a joke made on Twitter has inspired satire, celebrity outrage and simple incomprehension. It has also led to two appeals, the second of which begins in Court 74 at the High Court in London today before Lord Justice Gross and Mr Justice Irwin. This appeal, ‘by way of case stated’ (on questions of law alone) examines the scope of the legislation under which Chambers was convicted, and brings into focus some of the broader issues surrounding his prosecution, including the regulation of social media. Continue reading
The Inforrm Blog recently had its second birthday. Yesterday we reached another milestone – 1,000 posts. We would like to thank the many people who have contributed to the success of the blog over this period and particularly those who have written for us over the past two years.
The claim for judicial review of the Metropolitan police conduct in relation to the phone hacking investigation ended today in victory for the claimants. The Administrative Court granted a declaration of a breach of Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights in terms had been agreed between the parties. The police also agreed to pay the claimants costs and to an order that they send “letters of regret” to each of the Claimants, apologising personally for the distress caused by their failures to provide information about phone hacking. Continue reading
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑