The case of Kadir v Channel S Television [2014] EWHC 2305 was a hearing for assessment of damages in a libel claim following default judgment. The Defendant, a Channel broadcasting in the UK in the Bengali language, carried a news item in December 2011 alleging that the Second Claimant, a money transfer business, was reasonably suspected of fraud and that its director, Mr Kadir, had dealt with suspicions against the business’ employees in a highly evasive and incompetent manner. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: July 2014 (Page 1 of 5)
This is the fifth and final post in this series about the Defamation Act 2013. In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” and “public interest“. In this post, I conclude by looking at the new intermediary defences in section 5 and section 10. Continue reading
The Crown Prosecution Service has announced today that it has authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Jules Stenson, former features editor of the News of the World and to summons Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the News of the World on a ‘phone hacking’ charge. Continue reading
This post examines a recent opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals: Rooks v. Krzewski, 2014 WL 1351353 (2014). Joseph Krzewski appealed when, after a bench trial, a udge held he “portrayed” the two plaintiffs, Jonathan Rooks and Bradley Guizinga, “in a false light.” Rooks v. Krzewski, supra. The judge ordered Krzewski to “remove the false statements about [them] from the Internet and enjoined him from republishing any of the false statements.” Rooks v. Krzewski, supra. (For more on false light, check out this post.) Continue reading
In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013, concerns about section 1, “Serious harm” and the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest comment” in section 2 and section 3. In this post, I continue setting out concerns with the Defamation Act 2013 by looking at the public interest defence in section 4. Continue reading
The Data Protection Act: a stone to sling at the Facebook Goliath? – Rhory Robertson and Sophie Pugh
When you log into Facebook the first thing you see is your ‘newsfeed’: a seemingly random collection of messages, status updates and photographs posted by your Facebook friends. We say “seemingly random” with scepticism because of course Facebook is not so rudimentary. Continue reading
In earlier posts I have dealt with general concerns about the Defamation Act 2013 and concerns about section 1, “Serious harm”. In this post, I will look at at the new statutory defences of “truth” and “honest opinion” which are set out section 2 and section 3. Continue reading
On Monday 21 July 2014, the trial of singer Tulisa Contostavlos collapsed after the judge had ruled that it was likely that the Sun’s well known ex-News of the World investigative reporter, the “Fake Sheikh”, Mazher Mahmood, had attempted to persuade a witness to change his evidence and had then lied about it under oath. The full text of the Judge’s ruling can be found here. Continue reading
In this post, I continue setting out concerns with the Defamation Act 2013 by looking at the test for serious harm in section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. There is no sensible objection to a seriousness threshold for a defamation claim. As the explanatory notes of the Act make clear, this is the current law. Continue reading
A “15-year-old high school student” who was “prosecuted for ‘cyberbullying’ under a local law enacted by the Albany County Legislature” pleaded guilty to one count of cyberbullying and then challenged his conviction on appeal. People v. Marquan M., 2014 WL 2931482 (Court of Appeals of New York 2014). In his appeal, Marquan M. claimed the statute violated the First Amendment. People v. Marquan M., supra. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑