What does the draft Royal Charter really mean when it sets out the three core touchstones of press regulation recommended by Lord Justice Leveson – that it is ‘voluntary’, ‘independent’ and ‘self-regulatory’? And how far are these qualities reflected in press regulation overseas?
Continue reading
Inforrm's Blog
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Page 478 of 651
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has dismissed the application in the case of Animal Defenders International v United Kingdom. In a decision made by a majority of 9 votes to 8, the Grand Chamber held that the UK’s ban on political advertising in the broadcast media was not a violation of Article 10 of the Convention. Continue reading
There are two key developments in Parliament to report this week: the House of Commons rejected proposals to stop corporations suing for defamation unless they can show serious financial loss. After a short debate the House approved a Government motion to disagree with Amendment No.2 by 298 votes to 230. Justice Minister Helen Grant said the government was “prepared to consider actively that aspect of the Lords amendment further, and we will listen carefully to the views expressed in both Houses”. Continue reading
The whole idea of ‘free speech’ has had a few challenges this last week or so. The Paris Brown saga (about which I’ve written here), the decision by the BBC not to play ‘Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead’ though it reached number two in the charts, the various attempts to block protests at Margaret Thatcher’s funeral, the late amendments to the Defamation Act to remove the proposed controls over companies’ abilities to sue for libel, and the arrival in court of the Sally Bercow/Lord McAlpine twitter defamation trial about which I wrote this in December). Continue reading
In a trial that ran for 55 days late last year and concluding in February this year, the plaintiff, Derick John Sands, has lost his claim for defamation, as well as other claims including a breach of confidence and a breach of his right to privacy. Judgment was given on 5 April 2013 ([2013] SASC 44). Continue reading
Barely a week passes without another spate of Twitter controversies; last week’s protagonists included the Youth Police Commissioner of Kent, Paris Brown, forced to resign over her past ‘youthful indiscretions’ on the social networking site; Irish cricketer John Mooney was reprimanded by his employer for some ill-considered remarks on the passing of Margaret Thatcher; while footballer Joey Barton was threatened with legal action over his wearily familiar and uncouth pronouncements on a fellow player. Continue reading
On Thursday 18 April 2013 the Civil Justice Council (“CJC”) Working Group on Defamation costs published its Final Report [doc] on the case and options for costs protection in defamation and privacy proceedings. Continue reading
In his report, Lord Justice Leveson expressed concern at the ‘real harm caused to real people’ resulting from the ‘cultural indifference to individual privacy and dignity’ that he observes in problematic press behaviour. The tragic case of Lucy Meadows is surely the paradigm example of what he had in mind. Continue reading
When Leveson published his Report at the end of November our research showed that the press presented the story as one mainly about freedom of the press and the struggle by hacking victims for vindication and protection in the future. Slightly less prominent but also present was a narrative of the politico-media complex or ties between big media and politicians. Our latest study of newspaper coverage before and after the Royal Charter agreement for implementing Leveson’s recommendations showed that the struggle of the victims of press wrongdoings has all but disappeared from the story. Continue reading
The House of Commons yesterday considered the Defamation Bill and rejected the Lords amendment limit the ability of corporations to sue for libel. Lords Amendment No.2 was entitled “Non-natural persons” and provided that companies could only sue for libel if they could “show that the publication of the words or matters complained of has caused, or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss to the claimant”. After a short debate the House approved a Government motion to disagree with Amendment No.2 by 298 votes to 230. Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑