In his Report Lord Justice Leveson considered and rejected a proposal that there should be a statutory right of reply or correction. This was a proposal made by the Media Regulation Roundtable in its evidence to the Inquiry [pdf]. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
In his Report Lord Justice Leveson considered and rejected a proposal that there should be a statutory right of reply or correction. This was a proposal made by the Media Regulation Roundtable in its evidence to the Inquiry [pdf]. Continue reading
The Panopticon Blog has reported recently on the ICO’s new Code of Practice on Anonymisation. That Code offers guidance for ensuring data protection-compliant disclosure in difficult cases such as those involving apparently anonymous statistics, and situations where someone with inside knowledge (or a ‘motivated intruder’) could identify someone referred to anonymously in a disclosed document. The Upper Tribunal in Information Commissioner v Magherafelt District Council ([2012] UKUT 263 AAC) grappled with those issues earlier this year in the context of disclosing a summarised schedule of disciplinary action. Continue reading
The European Court of Human Rights has held in a judgment handed down on 24 July 2012 that the display of a flag with ‘controversial historical connotations’ was protected under Article 10. The applicant had been displaying the controversial Árpád striped flag, which has links to fascism and the Arrow Cross Regime, in Budapest on a day that the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) was holding a demonstration against racism and hatred. Continue reading

On 19 June 2012 in the cases of Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH (No. 2) v. Austria (Application no. 1593/06) and Krone Verlag GmbH v. Austria (no. 27306/07), the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights In Chamber judgments held that there had been no violation of Article 10 in two cases in which newspapers had revealed the identity of a child and published photographs from which he could be recognised. The publications were an interference with the child’s private life, and that the compensation of €9,000 and €130,000 was proportionate. Continue reading
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑