The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: August 2020 (Page 1 of 3)

Misinformation: tech companies are removing ‘harmful’ coronavirus content, but who decides what that means? – Stephanie Alice Baker, Matthew Wade, Michael James Walsh

The “infodemic” of misinformation about coronavirus has made it difficult to distinguish accurate information from false and misleading advice. The major technology companies have responded to this challenge by taking the unprecedented move of working together to combat misinformation about COVID-19. Continue reading

Case Law: Gilham v MGN, Primary school teacher awarded £49,000 compensation after offer of amends -Mathilde Groppo

On 12 August 2020, HHJ Lewis sitting as a judge of the High Court handed down judgment in Gilham v MGN Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 2217 (QB). This was a Part 8 claim for the determination of compensation following the acceptance of a qualified offer of amends, which was issued pursuant to section 3(5) of the Defamation Act 1996. Mr Gilham was awarded £49,000 by way of compensation. Continue reading

Australia: Media reporting on mental illness, violence and crime needs to change – Anna Ross, Elizabeth Paton, Michelle Blanchard

The media is a key source of information about mental illness for the public, and research shows media coverage can influence public attitudes and perceptions of mental ill-health. But when it comes to complex mental illnesses such as psychosis and schizophrenia, media coverage tends to emphasise negative aspects, often choosing to focus on portrayals of violence, unpredictability and danger to others. Continue reading

Case Law: Strasbourg, Four Russian Cases on Internet Blocking, Findings of Violations of Articles 10 and 13

In four Russian cases, Vladimir Kharitonov v. Russia (application no. 10795/14), OOO Flavus and Others v. Russia (application nos 12468/15, 23489/15, and 19074/16), Bulgakov v. Russia (no. 20159/15), and Engels v. Russia (no. 61919/16) the Third Section of the Court of Human Rights held that the blocking of websites in Russia was a breach of Articles 10 and 13. Continue reading

Case Law: R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales, Police use of “automatic facial recognition technology unlawful – Hugh Tomlinson QC

In the case of R (on the application of Bridges) v Chief Constable of South Wales Police ([2020] EWCA Civ 1058) the Court of Appeal held that the live automated facial recognition technology (“AFR”) used by the South Wales Police Force (“SWP”) was unlawful as it was not “in accordance with law” for the purposes of Article 8 of the ECHR. Continue reading

Case Law, Strasbourg: Macovei v Romania, Defamation proceedings against Romanian MEP over anti-corruption comments violated Article 10 – Ronan Ó Fathaigh and Dirk Voorhoof

On 28 July 2020, the European Court of Human Rights held in Monica Macovei v. Romania that defamation proceedings against a sitting Member of the European Parliament violated the politician’s right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2022 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑