The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: May 2016 (Page 1 of 5)

The Courts Both Uphold the Rule of Law and Prioritise the Human Rights of Individuals and Children Over the Commercial Interests of the Tabloid Press – Jonathan Coad

Sun PJSThe PJS v NGN injunction case is just another ugly example of a paid tabloid betrayal/kiss-and- tell story without a shred of genuine public interest while of considerable financial value to both the betrayer and the newspaper. Rarely does a legal case receive so much press attention as when tabloids are outraged by their inability to report on a celebrity threesome they claim is of interest to the public (rather than of legitimate public interest). Continue reading

Case Law: R (Ben-Dor) v The University of Southampton: Censorship or justified Concern? – Dominic Ruck Keene

southampton_1912501bIn the case of R(Ben-Dor & Ors) v The University of Southampton [2016] EWHC 953 (Admin)) Mrs Justice Whipple dismissed one claim for judicial review, and refused permission to bring a further claim, in respect of decisions made by Southampton University regarding a proposed conference on the legality of the existence of Israel under international law. Continue reading

The weird world of IPSO where “proportionate” means disproportionate, and “inaccurate” becomes accurate if someone else has said it first – Jonathan Coad

whirlpool-applaince-repairsJust as did its predecessor the Press Complaints Commission, IPSO applies the kind of perverse reasoning to the commercial advantage of its sponsors and creators which you would expect from a regulator which in defiance of both the will of parliament and the public has been set up by the press, funded by the press, the Code written by the press, its personnel appointed by the press, and with press delegates in the form of ex-editors on its complaints committee.  Continue reading

Case Law: Heythrop Zoo (t/a Amazing Animals) v Captive Animals Protection Society, Application for Interim application to restrain NGO from using zoo photographs dismissed

AnimalsIn the case of Heythrop Zoological Gardens Ltd (trading as Amazing Animals) v Captive Animals Protection Society ([2016] EWHC 1370 (Ch)) Birss J refused to grant a company which specialises in training animals for use in the film industry an interim injunction to prevent a campaign group from using photographs and video taken at its zoo. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2021 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑