Barely a week passes without another spate of Twitter controversies; last week’s protagonists included the Youth Police Commissioner of Kent, Paris Brown, forced to resign over her past ‘youthful indiscretions’ on the social networking site; Irish cricketer John Mooney was reprimanded by his employer for some ill-considered remarks on the passing of Margaret Thatcher; while footballer Joey Barton was threatened with legal action over his wearily familiar and uncouth pronouncements on a fellow player. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: April 2013 (Page 3 of 5)
On Thursday 18 April 2013 the Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) Working Group on Defamation costs published its Final Report [doc] on the case and options for costs protection in defamation and privacy proceedings. Continue reading
In his report, Lord Justice Leveson expressed concern at the ‘real harm caused to real people’ resulting from the ‘cultural indifference to individual privacy and dignity’ that he observes in problematic press behaviour. The tragic case of Lucy Meadows is surely the paradigm example of what he had in mind. Continue reading
When Leveson published his Report at the end of November our research showed that the press presented the story as one mainly about freedom of the press and the struggle by hacking victims for vindication and protection in the future. Slightly less prominent but also present was a narrative of the politico-media complex or ties between big media and politicians. Our latest study of newspaper coverage before and after the Royal Charter agreement for implementing Leveson’s recommendations showed that the struggle of the victims of press wrongdoings has all but disappeared from the story. Continue reading
The House of Commons yesterday considered the Defamation Bill and rejected the Lords amendment limit the ability of corporations to sue for libel. Lords Amendment No.2 was entitled “Non-natural persons” and provided that companies could only sue for libel if they could “show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss to the claimant”. After a short debate the House approved a Government motion to disagree with Amendment No.2 by 298 votes to 230. Continue reading
It is dangerous for companies and high profile individuals to assume that social media is just a playground where people just tell others what they’ve had for dinner and take photographs of snow in their back garden.
That does happen (far too often) but social media, and other online platforms, are far more than just that – they are defining the way that brands and reputations are viewed. Continue reading
The round up is back, following a break over Easter. The Defamation Bill is now coming to the end of its passage through Parliament. On 16 April 2013 it will be back before the Commons on “ping pong”, the stage at which the Commons considers new amendments made by the House of Lords. As Inforrm noted here, in a post examining the detail of the Amendments, there were 16 Lords Amendments. Conservative MP and former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, has sought to remove Amendment 2. Continue reading
I feel as if I write this same thing about once every year. Someone rushes to court to get an injunction preventing the release of information. It’s based on breach of confidence. Here it’s the Earthquake Commission seeking to prevent the release of a database containing assessments about 83,000 Christchurch claims. Continue reading
The Defamation Bill is coming to the end of its long passage through parliament. It received its “first reading” in the House of Commons on 12 May 2012 – presented by the then Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke. On 16 April 2013 it will be back before the Commons on “ping pong” – the stage at which the Commons considers new amendments made by the House of Lords. There were sixteen Lords Amendments. The Conservative MP and former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, has been criticised for seeking to remove one of them – Amendment 2 “Non-Natural Persons”. Continue reading
On 4 March 2013, a number of senior judges formally responded [pdf] to the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper 209 on Contempt of Court [pdf]. The response is, as might be expected, a careful and considered document sensitive to the right of freedom of expression, in for example, expressing concerns about suggested new powers to make “take down” orders. It is, therefore, at first sight surprising that this document should feature in the Sun newspaper on two successive days. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑