A loyal reader has pointed out that the Inforrm Blog missed its own seventh birthday, on 22 January 2017. Well, as we get older birthdays become less important … However, we will take this opportunity to remind readers that we have now been publishing for 7 years (2 months and 4 days).
Our first post was on 22 January 2010, in the days of the great libel reform debate. We began with 7 page views and one post in the first month. Now, seven years later, we have had a total of nearly 3,900 posts and 3.8 million page views.
The media law issues we have debated have changed over the years. If 2010 was the year of libel reform, the focus in 2011 moved to privacy, The first half of 2011 saw the “Super-Injunction spring”. In 2011 to 2012 there was phone hacking followed by the Leveson Inquiry – which reported in November 2012.
The discussion in 2013 was dominated by the Leveson Report and the debate about its implementation. In 2014 we had the coming into force of the Defamation Act 2013 – which had been the result of the libel reform debate which partly inspired our launch – was first set up – phone hacking and Operation Elveden trials and Google Spain.
In 2015 we had the Mirror Phone Hacking damages trial and appeal, the beginnings of a body of case law on the Defamation Act 2013 and the continuing importance of data protection issues. And privacy injunctions seemed to be making a slow comeback …
In 2016 the mini-revival of the privacy injunction continued, notably with PJS v News Group in the Supreme Court (our post on the Court of Appeal decision granting the injunction is now our most popular of all time). The Courts continued to grapple with the Defamation Act 2013 and data protection issues began to bubble to the surface. The press regulation debate continued – culminating in the DCMS Consultation on section 40 and Leveson 2 (results awaited).
In 2017 we are continuing our coverage of general media and legal issues – case law from Britain, Europe and around the world and other issues such as social media and cyberbullying. Two media law Supreme Court decisions – on CFAs and anonymisation in a criminal trial – are awaited. All suggestions for topics from our readers are welcomed.
We would like to thank all our readers and contributors over the past 7 years. The top posts over this period have been from a number of outside authors – taking a range of different views on the issues. Our intention continues to be to serve as a “forum” for debating issues and we would encourage readers to offer contributions on any issue concerning media responsibility, media law and the other topics which we have been writing about. Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
The top 20 posts of all time are (in descending order)
- Case Law: PJS v News Group Newspapers, Court of Appeal grants privacy injunction – Sara Mansoori and Aidan Wills
- Harassment and injunctions: Cheryl Cole – Natalie Peck
- The cases of Vanessa Perroncel and John Terry – a curious legal affair – Dominic Crossley
- How to avoid defamation – Steven Price
- Case Law, Strasbourg: Von Hannover v Germany (No.2) – Unclear clarification and unappreciated margins – Kirsten Sjøvoll
- Social Media: How many people use Twitter and what do we think about it?
- Case Law: OPO v MLA, Shock and disbelief at the Court of Appeal – Dan Tench
- Case Law: ETK v News Group Newspapers “Privacy Injunctions and Children” – Edward Craven
- Case Preview: Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins, Twitter libel trial about meaning and serious harm
- Defamation Act 2013: A Summary and Overview – Iain Wilson and Max Campbell
- Case Law: “Spiller v Joseph – the New Defence of Honest Comment” – Catherine Rhind
- The Perils of “Revenge Porn” – Alex Cochrane
- Case Law: Iqbal v Dean Manson, harassment by letter – Edward Craven
- News: Tulisa “Sex Tape”, false privacy turns into true privacy
- Case Law: Růžový Panter, OS v Czech Republic: Anti-Corruption NGO defamation case, no violation of Article 10
- La Regina Nuda and Italian Privacy Law – Athalie Matthews and Giacomo Parmigiani
- Case Law: Gulati v MGN Ltd, A landmark decision on the quantum of privacy damages – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori
- The MP and the “Super-Injunction” – rumour, myth and distortion (again)
- Case Law: Hayes v Willoughby, harassment defence requires “rational belief” – Aileen McColgan
- Case Law: Thornton v Telegraph Media Group, an offer of amends defence fails – Hugh Tomlinson QC [Updated]