The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: May 2012 (Page 4 of 6)

Privacy On Parade – Mark Pearson

The right to privacy is a relatively modern international legal concept. Until the late 19th century gentlemen used the strictly codified practice of the duel to settle their disputes over embarrassing exposés of their private lives.

The first celebrity to convert his personal affront into a legal suit was the author of The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumas père, who in 1867 sued a photographer who had attempted to register copyright in some steamy images of Dumas with the ‘Paris Hilton’ of the day – 32-year-old actress Adah Isaacs Menken. Continue reading

Case Law: R (Calver) v Adjudication Panel, Censure of councillor for “sarcastic, lampooning and disrespectful” blog breached his free speech rights – Rachit Buch

In the case of R (on the application of Calver) v The Adjudication Panel for Wales ([2012] EWHC 1172 (Admin)) the Administrative Court held that the decision to censure a Welsh councillor for comments on his blog was a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression. This right requires a broad interpretation of what counts as “political speech” – even when the speech is sarcastic and mocking. Continue reading

Freedom of Expression: the Adventures of Tintin in the land of the law – Jogchum Vrielink

In Belgium, a Congolese student and a minority organisation sought to obtain a ban on the comic book ‘Tintin in the Congo’. A Brussels court rejected their claims. Despite this outcome, the reasoning of the court jeopardises free speech. As regards the applicants: offensive as the comic may be, their recourse to the law is both misdirected and counterproductive.

Tintin, the brainchild of the Hergé († 1983), is experiencing new and exciting adventures these days. Not just in the cinema, but in Belgian courts as well. Continue reading

Journalism and the Wonderland of Public Interest, an Australian Perspective – Richard Ackland

What is meant by the term public interest? And does it trump a public figure’s right to privacy? Richard Ackland casts a gimlet eye over the concept and the difference between the media and judicial view

That’s for our readers to tell … That will be determined by the number of people that buy the paper“. So said the deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph, Helen McCabe, when asked by Media Watch in 2009 what was the public interest in her paper publishing those pouty photos of a young Pauling Hanson, in lingerie. Except, as it expensively transpired, it was not Pauline Hanson. Continue reading

Case Law: SKA v CRH, variation of a privacy injunction – Kirsty Hughes

In SKA and PLM v CRH [2012] EWHC 766 (QB) Tugendhat J refused to grant an injunction prohibiting the disclosure of the fact that the claimants were engaged in an extra-marital relationship, and the paternity of the claimants’ unborn twins. The case raises interesting questions about whether the bare fact of a relationship can constitute private information, whether the paternity of one’s children constitutes private information, and the competing rights of others. Overall the reasoning is not entirely convincing and the decision seems dominated by frustration at the claimants’ lack of co-operation and judicial perceptions of morality.  Continue reading

Law and Media Round Up – 7 May 2012

The big media law story of the week was the culture, media and sport select committee’s report into phone hacking [PDF] and one line in particular: its conclusion that “Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company“.  The committee found that its 2010 report on press standards was partially based on false evidence which had been intended to cover up the extent of the phone hacking scandal; its findings are summarised on Inforrm here. News Corp’s response to the report is here. Continue reading

South Africa Case Law: source protection an integral part of media freedom – Dario Milo and Pamela Stein

It is fitting that last week, as South Africans were poised to celebrate Freedom Day, the day of the country’s first democratic elections, South Gauteng High Court handed down a judgment which has profound implications for media freedom.  For the first time in South African constitutional democracy, in an interlocutory application for further discovery and particulars in a defamation case, Bosasa v Mail & Guardian ([2012] ZAGPJHC 71) a court has unequivocally endorsed the importance to the media of protecting the confidentiality of their sources. Continue reading

Open Justice: In England, justice is open to all – like the Ritz Hotel – Eoin O’Dell

Sir James Mathew, via National Portrait Gallery websiteThus (probably) spoke a nineteenth century Irish judge, Sir James Mathew (1830-1908) (pictured). The Ritz is now owned by David and Frederick Barclay, and they are at present locked in what the media are describing as “bitter” legal proceedings (in tabloid-speak, is there any other kind of legal dispute?) being taken against them in London by Irish businessman and property developer Paddy McKillen. McKillen and the Barclays own stakes in a high profile hotel group; and in these proceedings, McKillen alleges that the Barclays have been attempting to seize control of the group by unlawful means. He is no stranger to high-stakes litigation, having successfully thwarted the National Asset Management Agency in the Irish courts in Dellway Investments v NAMA [2011] IESC 4 (3 February 2011). Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑