The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: November 2019 (Page 3 of 4)

Daily Mail publication of intimate images of Congresswoman Katie Hill’s sparks a conversation about ISP liability in revenge pornography cases – Colette Allen

Katie Hill, the former Representative for Los Angeles, quit Congress last Thursday after intimate photos were leaked by her ex-husband and an investigation was launched into whether she had a relationship with her subordinate. In a tearful resignation video, Hill vowed to dedicate the rest of her career to fighting revenge pornography and getting justice for victims. In the UK, the Daily Mail stuck its nose in by displaying the images on their website last week. This incident seemed as good a time as any to look into what avenues survivor-victims of revenge pornography can take under current English and Welsh law. Continue reading

Law and Media Round Up – 11 November 2019

The leading phone hacking campaigner and Labour Deputy Leader Tom Watson MP has announced that he is standing down as an MP. Meanwhile Byline Investigates reports that twelve editors at The Sun have been accused at the High Court of phone hacking and commissioning illegal private investigators. The list of names features members of The Sun’s leadership team stretching back more than 20 years. Continue reading

United States: Is Assange Entitled to Full First Amendment Protection? – James C Goodale

At a recent panel discussion at Columbia University on Press Freedom, National Security and Whistleblowers, at which the case of Julian Assange was discussed, no one on the panel mentioned the application of the First Amendment to the defense of Julian Assange. Rather, members of the panel effectively suggested his actions could be judged by a public interest or public concern standard. Continue reading

Territorial scope in recent CJEU cases: Google v CNIL / Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook – Cathryn Hopkins

The Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) has handed down a few intermediary-related judgments since September alone, and two are considered below. Although one relates to the E-Commerce Directive (the “ECD”) and the other to the Data Protection Direction (the “DPD”)/GDPR, a comparison of the judgments shows an apparently inconsistent approach of the CJEU to the territorial reach of injunctions against internet intermediaries. Continue reading

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑