Inforrm is taking a Winter Break

Now that the legal term has ended, Inforrm is taking a winter break for a few weeks to allow the editorial team to relax. We will have a some occasional posts over the next fortnight but the full normal service will not be resumed until 9 January 2018.

It has been another great year for views and posts on the Inforrm blog.  We have had over 400,000 page views this year, more than half from the UK with the United States, Australia, Malaysia and India making up the rest of the top five.  We have had over 400 posts this year on a very wide variety of media and legal topics from authors from all areas of media law and all round the world.

Many thanks to all our readers for following the blog and our twitter feed.  And thank you for the many positive comments we have had (and the constructive negative ones).  Thanks also to everyone who has written for the blog.

As we have said many times before, Inforrm is intended to be a forum for debate and we welcome contributions from all points of view about issues concerning “media and law”.  We can be contacted via the email address on the home page.

The top 20 posts of 2017 were as follows (in descending order)

• Case Preview: Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins, Twitter libel trial about meaning and serious harm
• How to avoid defamation – Steven Price
• Defamation Act 2013: A Summary and Overview – Iain Wilson and Max Campbell
• Media and Law: Review of Defamation, Privacy and other Media Cases in 2016
• Case Report: Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins, Libel Trial, Day 3: Claimants closing submissions, judgment reserved
• Is there is any difference between the public interest and the interest of the public? – Brian Cathcart
• Defamation Act 2013: The public interest defence and digital communications – Jacob Rowbottom
• Case Law: Dawson-Damer v Taylor Wessing, Subject access requests: Court of Appeal bolsters right to disclosure of data – Ashley Hurst and Peter Barratt
• Seamus Milne and the ‘Mystery Blonde’: Five years after Leveson the press still ignores privacy – Hugh Tomlinson QC
• How Dacre and the Mail are making the case for section 40 – Brian Cathcart
• Defamation Act 2013: A sensible balance or a step back? – Philip Steele
• News: Privacy injunction granted against the Sun, first reported privacy injunction of 2017
• Case Report: Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins, Days 1 and 2: claimant’s evidence and defendant’s closing submissions
• Case Law: Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins, Success for claimant in Twitter libel case – Nathan Capone
• Case Law, India: Puttaswamy v Union of India, Supreme Court recognises a constitutional right to privacy in a landmark judgment – Hugh Tomlinson QC
• Case Law: Gulati v MGN Ltd, A landmark decision on the quantum of privacy damages – Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori
• Malaysia: Journalist ordered to pay £100,000 damages in Twitter Libel Case
• Case Law: Hayes v Willoughby, harassment defence requires “rational belief” – Aileen McColgan
• Case Law, India: Shreya Singhal v Union of India: Law on offensive communications ruled unconstitutional – Jonathan McCully
• Spent convictions in the law of Privacy and Data Protection: Part One – Aidan Wills