Monday, 29 April 2013

Web access could be a human right: Cabinet Office Minister

Web access could be a human right - Telegraph: "Countries including France, Spain, Finland and Estonia have already enshrined online access in law, and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, has called for global measures because the web preserves freedom.
Mr Maude said that he would take Sir Tim’s suggestion “under advisement”, and called the suggestion “a really interesting idea”. The statement is the first time a member of the Government has offered to think about guaranteeing web access for all in the UK." 'via Blog this'

ECtHR Dismisses Animal Defenders “Political Advertising” Art.10 application | Inforrm's Blog

News: Court of Human Rights Dismisses Animal Defenders “Political Advertising” Article 10 application | Inforrm's Blog: "Judgment ([2013] ECHR 362) was handed down by the Grand Chamber this morning, more than a year after the original hearing. The majority attached considerable weight to the fact that the ban had been upheld by parliamentary and judicial bodies and their decision that it was “necessary to prevent the distortion of crucial public interest debates” [116]  The Court also thought that it was important that the prohibition was specifically circumscribed to address the risk of distortion [117].  It noted that there was not European consensus as to how to regulate paid political advertising and this suggested that a wide margin appreciation should be allowed [123].  Finally, it noted that other media were open to the applicant [124].
The UK judge, Sir Nicholas Bratza, delivered a concurring opinion which he noted that the role of the Strasbourg Court was not to carry out its own balancing test.
The dissenting judges noted that the case was almost identical to previous cases before the Court where the outcome had been a finding of violation." 'via Blog this'

Defamation Act 2013

Defamation Act 2013: "S.5 (1)This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.
(2)It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website.
(3)The defence is defeated if the claimant shows that—
(a)it was not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement,
(b)the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and
(c)the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
(4)For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), it is possible for a claimant to “identify” a person only if the claimant has sufficient information to bring proceedings against the person." 'via Blog this'

Monday, 8 April 2013

Leveson, Crime and Courts Bill and Online publishers

Leveson, Crime and Courts Bill and Online publishers, the devil is in the detail – Ashley Hurst | Inforrm's Blog: "sticks apply to any publisher falling within the definition of “relevant publisher” currently set out in clause 18(1) of the Bill, which will include any person “who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material— (a) which is written by different authors, and (b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control.“
The requirements of “in the course of business” and “news-related material” will exclude many bloggers but the scope of these requirements is by no means certain. Whilst it would not include this blog, it may well include websites like Mumsnet unless they fall within the “special interest” website definition. It will also certainly apply to Google news and other online news publishers and smaller companies publishing news related material, whether through their own journalism or through aggregation." 'via Blog this'