Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides (or will do when the Act comes into force) a complete defence from a defamation claim for a website operator who can show that it did not post the statement on the website. This is a significant new protection for website operators. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: August 2013 (Page 1 of 2)
Over recent weeks there has been a welcome debate on trolling and online abuse. One of the main questions has been – who bears the responsibility of dealing with this reprehensible practice, with many pointing accusing fingers at Twitter. Continue reading
Dissent is one of the key functions of a free press. Even above the provision of information, the provocation of democratic debate, or the search for truth; the ability to openly and freely criticise government is perhaps the paramount reason why we as a society enshrine the protection of the press and of speech. Continue reading
At the Home Affairs Select Committee on 19 July 2011 the following question was asked of Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis: – Continue reading 
Gina Rinehart loses sources disclosure battle as a landmark judgment in WA upholds journalists’ shield laws … Media lawyer Peter Bartlett reviews the decision in light of several current challenges. Continue reading
The Ministry of Justice (the “MOJ”) last week published its draft regulations (the “Regulations”) for the notice and take-down procedure for website operators under Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 (“Section 5” and the “Act”). Continue reading
The Open Rights Group is asking people to sign a petition asking David Cameron not to require Internet Service Providers to switch on ‘adult’ web filters by default, meaning that anyone who wishes to access certain kinds of material online will have to ask their ISP to switch off the filter. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑