Just as the controversy over the hyper-reporting of the suicide of Robin Williams was beginning to fade, West Mercia Police were called to a house in the village of Pow Green, Herefordshire, where they discovered the bodies of a retired businessman and his wife. Both had been killed by a single gunshot wound. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Category: Uncategorized (Page 1 of 4)
The current paradigm of electronic communication governance in the UK consists mainly in promoting competition to ensure that consumers can choose the services they prefer. In areas – such as public service media – where markets fail, or where an agreed public interest is thereby served, public provision or specific regulations protect key interests. Continue reading
Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides (or will do when the Act comes into force) a complete defence from a defamation claim for a website operator who can show that it did not post the statement on the website. This is a significant new protection for website operators. Continue reading
On 22 June 2013 the Independent published a genuine scoop – ‘The Other Hacking Scandal‘ (here). Tom Harper obtained and reported on the full and unredacted version of the 2008 Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) report on ‘Project Riverside’. It collated and detailed five investigations uncovering serious illegalities by ‘rogue element’ private investigators. The Indy’s scoop triggered a chain reaction amongst some of Harper’s fellow journalists seeking to blame Leveson for keeping them in the dark. Continue reading
Whilst the headlines reverberating from the Leveson Report are dominated by the theme of press regulation, tucked away deeper in the Report are some very significant proposals concerning journalistic protection and the relationship between the media and the criminal law. Continue reading
The Sun is far from alone in attacking other media organisations, but newspapers routinely calling for the censorship of other media is a paradoxical and extremely distasteful sight. It is one which casts a good deal of doubt on the sincerity of their demands before the Leveson Inquiry that press freedom must be protected above all else. Press freedom is but one aspect of media freedom in general, and if newspapers cannot see that there is the starkest of contradictions in calling for their own freedom (self-circumscribed though it is) to be defended whilst bawling for the censorship of other media, then the clock really has struck thirteen. Continue reading
Following my post a couple of weeks ago, the Leveson Inquiry continues to struggle with its terms of reference and the particular question of whether it should make recommendations on media ownership. Leveson himself chose yesterday (at 94-103 minutes) to ask Ed Miliband whether he could avoid making detailed recommendations on the controversial topic. The Judge, perhaps seeking political cover for a possible decision to duck the question of media ownership, sought to clarify the responsibility set for him by the terms of reference of the Inquiry. Continue reading
A journalist with no formal legal training gave his name to the industry’s media law “bible”.
Leonard McNae, 1902-1996, wrote the first Essential Law for Journalists for the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ), which was published as a book in 1954, replacing the NUJ’s The Pressman and the Law by G.F.L. Bridgman of the Middle Temple. Continue reading
Media law news this week was dominated by the Tulisa privacy injunction and the long-awaited judgment in Flood v Times Newspapers. Tulisa used a YouTube video, which has now attracted over 3.5 million views, to “set the record straight” following the leak and publication of a private video. Continue reading
Practitioners have, again, been reminded in strong terms of the need for strict compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules when applications are made for “without notice” injunctions. It has again been pointed out that notice is a matter of “elementary” justice and that, if it is not given, CPR 25.3(3) and PD 25A para 4.3 require the service of evidence stating the reasons why notice has not been given. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2023 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑