tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4017917232382737372024-02-20T00:29:26.939-08:00Sussex Media LawA teaching and research resource for students of M3104.chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.comBlogger366125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-16403202335220739322017-09-18T02:45:00.001-07:002017-09-18T02:45:52.930-07:00Now out – Medium Law – the book! – Lex Ferenda<a href="https://lexferenda.com/2017/09/18/now-out-medium-law-the-book/">Now out – Medium Law – the book! – Lex Ferenda</a>: "I will set out the case for continuing to acknowledge within regulation, and in some cases use as the basis for special regulation, the medium. This is not to say that every silo ought to be defended on equal terms. There are plenty of examples where the lines drawn for legal purposes make no sense, and may have never made sense in the first place.<br /><br />
But I will propose that the idea of converged, cross-platform, medium-neutral media regulation is unattainable in practice and potentially undesirable in substance. <br />
<br /><br />
What I’ve tried to do in the book is identify the role of the medium in media law. Chapter two is about the significance of the medium, historically and in the present day, including an extended discussion of Canadian media scholars Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan, and examples from outside of conventional media law. Two long chapters, following a similar structure, investigate the medium within the film and game sectors – both affected by digital technologies and by specific forms of regulation. " <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-79280063493048881802016-07-23T11:57:00.001-07:002016-07-23T11:57:07.137-07:00Index on Censorship | Art and the Law: Guides to the legal framework and its impact on artistic freedom of expression - Index on Censorship<a href="https://www.indexoncensorship.org/art-and-the-law-guides-to-the-legal-framework-impacting-on-artistic-freedom-of-expression/">Index on Censorship | Art and the Law: Guides to the legal framework and its impact on artistic freedom of expression - Index on Censorship</a>: "Freedom of expression is essential to the arts. But the laws and practices that protect and nurture free expression are often poorly understood both by practitioners and by those enforcing the law.<br />
<br />
As part of Index on Censorship’s work on art and offence, Index has published a series of law packs intended to address questions about legal limits related to free expression and the arts." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-40625224315619896072016-06-11T14:40:00.001-07:002016-06-11T14:40:26.804-07:00Uber/Barcelona in CJEU<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CN0434">EUR-Lex - 62015CN0434 - EN - EUR-Lex</a>: "Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi v Uber Systems Spain, S.L.<br />
<br />
(Case C-434/15)<br />
<br />
(2015/C 363/27)" <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-67345378615216967082016-06-11T06:31:00.001-07:002016-06-11T06:31:19.424-07:00After Snowden, there is clear evidence of a paradigmatic shift in journalist-source relations<a href="https://www.journalism.co.uk/news-commentary/after-snowden-there-is-clear-evidence-of-a-paradigmatic-shift-in-journalist-source-relations/s6/a644750/">After Snowden, there is clear evidence of a paradigmatic shift in journalist-source relations | Comments from media industry experts</a>: "All through my time as a journalist there has been a behind-the-scenes battle going on to close down journalists’ access to insider sources – people who are usually deeply concerned about what is going on under the cover of blanket secrecy. These are the people who allow journalists to do their aspirational fourth estate role of monitoring what intelligence does, in our name.<br /><br />
Until Edward Snowden’s documents began to be published in June 2013 – again by the Guardian – no one other than the intelligence agencies and a handful of cabinet ministers knew the sheer scale of personal information that was being collected by GCHQ as part of the National Security Agency’s ‘Five Eyes’ network.<br />
<br />
The Snowden revelations – that our actions and movements are recorded digitally – raise serious questions over the ability of journalists to protect their sources whether in intelligence agencies, government or corrupt private companies.<br /><br />
Over the last months I interviewed over a dozen investigative journalists, at least two from each of the Five Eyes countries. All have extensive experience of national security reporting." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-47157772819005383442016-04-26T01:07:00.001-07:002016-04-26T01:07:48.869-07:00Charter of Fundamental Rights<a href="https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/introduction/">Introduction to Human Rights – UK Human Rights Blog</a>:<br /><br />
"<i>it would seem that the much wider Charter of Rights is now part of our domestic law. Moreover, that much wider Charter of Rights would remain part of our domestic law even if the Human Rights Act were repealed</i>." (R(AB) v Secretary of State [2013] EWHC 3453 (Admin), at [14])<br /><br />
This instrument, which was given legal effect by Article 6(1) TEU (the Lisbon Treaty), is controversial because it contains a range of rights some of which mimic those in the European Convention of Human Rights, others which go beyond the scope of the ECHR by appearing to grant social and economic rights to citizens of the EU, including the right to health care (Article 35), access to services (Article 36) and social security (Article 34). These are aspirational “rights” whose effect on the EU legislature has yet to be played out.<br /><br />
Although it has full Treaty force, the Charter does not extend the competence or powers of the EU (Article 51(2) of the Charter and Article 6(1) TEU). The jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice has long established the rule that the human rights aspect of Community law is only binding on member states when their actions engage EU law (Case 5/88 Wachauf and Case C-260/89 ERT ). However, EU law reaches far into the relationship between state and citizen and as a result the UK has filed an “opt-out” protocol in respect of the Charter, Article 1 of which states that it<br />
<br />
does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms (Protocol No 30 of 2007)" <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-56341803030877212932016-04-26T00:50:00.001-07:002016-04-26T00:50:43.192-07:00Today's The Anniversary Of A Landmark Freedom Of The Press Case<a href="http://rightsinfo.org/todays-anniversary-landmark-freedom-press-case/">Today's The Anniversary Of A Landmark Freedom Of The Press Case - RightsInfo</a>: "The key consequence of the decision in Sunday Times v UK is that newspapers can publish stories on court cases where it is in the public interest for them to do so. On the other hand, it is also important that there should never be a ‘trial by newspaper’ or, now, trial by Google, Facebook or Twitter.<br /><br />
‘Trial by newspaper’ is the phrase used to describe the impact of television and media coverage on a person’s reputation before their trial in a court of law. It is important that this does not happen because it might look like the media coverage is able to affect the legal proceedings in some way, which could undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system.<br /><br />
It could also cause jury members or parties to legal proceedings to pre-judge the case, which potentially denies parties a fair trial." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-106076833118738702016-04-13T14:13:00.001-07:002016-04-13T14:13:41.482-07:00Court of Appeal injuncts revelation of celebrity's extramarital threesome<a href="http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=42d6ee5e-9da7-4ba3-b723-d43e0ec02108">Court of Appeal injuncts revelation of celebrity's extramarital threesome - Lexology</a>: "The Court of Appeal has granted a privacy injunction (its first since 2011) to prevent the Sun on Sunday revealing details of a well-known entertainer’s extramarital threesome (PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 100)." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-77660605561440753002016-04-13T10:19:00.001-07:002016-04-13T10:19:50.652-07:00The real Whittingdale scandal: a cover up by the UK press<a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourbeeb/james-cusick/real-whittingdale-scandal-cover-up-by-press">The real Whittingdale scandal: a cover up by the UK press | openDemocracy</a>: "As Culture Secretary, with a brief that includes media policy, Whittingdale has a powerful influence over press regulation, the mooted privatisation of Channel 4 and above all the future finances of the BBC.<br />
<br />
So far his key policy decisions have included:<br /><br />
* Serial attacks on the BBC’s independence and influence<br /><br />
* Backing for the Treasury’s assault on the public service broadcaster's finances<br /><br />
* Unilaterally blocked legislation recommended by the Leveson Inquiry into the press, passed by all three major political parties in parliament in 2013 <br />
<br /><br />
* Personal support for the press industry’s new non-Leveson compliant regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organisation, IPSO.<br /><br />
Whittingdale, according to one Whitehall source, became “The culture secretary Rupert Murdoch dreamt of, and the cabinet insider those who fought Brian Leveson’s recommendations prayed they would get.” <br />
<br />
Keeping Whittingdale right where he is, rather than ousting him, perfectly suits those in Fleet Street who view Leveson as a commercial threat to business-as-usual." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-25684258518773785492016-03-21T05:00:00.001-07:002016-03-21T05:00:52.043-07:00Adam Johnson: Why putting people in the picture can be risky business<a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/readers-editor/adam-johnson-why-putting-people-in-the-picture-can-be-risky-business-34529884.html">Adam Johnson: Why putting people in the picture can be risky business - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk</a>: "Judge Howard Riddle was quoted in Press Gazette as saying: "It is right and it is, indeed, clear that there are no facial features identifiable from the photo, the hair colour has been disguised, the hair length has been changed and the background to the photograph has been altered and, indeed, there have been other changes relating to, for example, clothing."<br /><br />
Nevertheless, Dinsmore was found guilty of breaching the Act.<br /><br />
The judge did accept mitigating factors existed.<br />
<br />
Judge Riddle added: "Having heard from Mr Dinsmore, I am satisfied that he took - and the staff on the newspaper took - steps that they thought complied with the law."<br /><br />
The judge said he was satisfied Dinsmore did not know he was committing an offence and ordered that he pay £1,300 costs and offer to pay £1,000 in compensation to the girl for any distress caused." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-82023789091739803582016-03-21T04:56:00.001-07:002016-03-21T04:56:11.664-07:00Hogan v. Gawker - unauthorised sex tapes and privacy<a href="https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2016/03/21/law-and-media-round-up-21-march-2016/">Law and Media Round Up – 21 March 2016 | Inforrm's Blog</a>: "New York Times reported that the damages will probably be reduced, and that any wider effects on press freedoms were ‘likely to be limited.’ It said that ‘a jury decision in one lower court does not set a precedent.’ Several legal experts were quoted saying that the Gawker case would not have a huge impact because it was an unusual and specific case. Erwin Chemerinsky, a professor at University of California Irvine, said<br />
<br />
“I think this case establishes a very limited proposition"<a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-87817774983599194852016-03-08T00:29:00.001-08:002016-03-08T00:29:33.557-08:00Former Sun editor convicted over Adam Johnson victim picture<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/07/adam-johnson-former-sun-editor-david-dinsmore-convicted-victim-picture">Former Sun editor convicted over Adam Johnson victim picture | UK news | The Guardian</a>: "Dinsmore, who was promoted to chief operating officer of the paper’s publisher, News UK, in September 2015, was found guilty of breaching the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 following a trial on Monday.<br />
<br />
Under the legislation, victims are granted lifelong anonymity and the press is prohibited from publishing any details that might lead to identification.<br /><br />
The judge ruled that, although the Sun had altered the photo to disguise the girl’s identity, it could have left her identifiable by people familiar with her Facebook profile." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-62564075990064651092016-03-01T15:41:00.001-08:002016-03-01T15:41:03.051-08:00Report urges end to 94 years of BBC self-regulation<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/01/bbc-regulation-ofcom-trust-david-clementi">Report urges end to 94 years of BBC self-regulation | Media | The Guardian</a>: "“Not surprisingly, best practice requires regulator and regulatee to be in different legal entities,” he said. “Regulatory oversight should pass wholly to Ofcom, which is already the public service regulator for the UK’s broadcasting industry and has the ability to look at the BBC in the context of the market as a whole. Ofcom would be a strong regulator to match a strong BBC.”<br />
<br />
Clementi also recommended that the BBC’s day-to-day operations be run by a unitary board, headed by a majority of non-executive directors." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-18118849945217243272016-03-01T07:49:00.001-08:002016-03-01T07:49:39.549-08:00Arlewin v Sweden, satellite TV defamation case - European Court of Human Rights<a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-5313759-6617151#">HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights</a>: "Judgment Arlewin v. Sweden - jurisdiction in defamation proceedings arising out of transborder television programme<br />
<br />
Press Release - Chamber Judgments | Published On 01/03/2016" <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-23520134963073508022016-02-27T00:51:00.001-08:002016-02-27T00:51:30.378-08:00CJEU rules on the meaning of 'audiovisual media service' New Media Online<a href="http://technologyandoutsourcingblog.fieldfisher.com/2015/cjeu-rules-on-the-meaning-of-audiovisual-media-service">CJEU rules on the meaning of 'audiovisual media service' - Tech Bytes Fieldfisher</a>: "Where video content is included on a newspaper's website, they must be primarily linked and relevant to the text-based journalistic content in order to fall outside the principal purpose test and hence the AVMS Directive. It does not matter how the video content is organised (whether imbedded within articles or collated on a separate sub-domain) or whether the videos are part of a wider news service. This strikes us as a sensible approach, in that the AVMS Directive should not be capable of circumvention merely by the service architecture and the way content is presented.<br /><br />
It is also interesting to compare the CJEU's judgment on the principal purpose test with an earlier <a href="http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2012/02/regulation-of-video-on-demand-services-following-the-sun-video-appeal">decision of Ofcom in the Sun Video case</a>. In that case, Ofcom found in favour of the Sun (as there was significant linking between the videos and the articles) and also laid out some examples of characteristics of a service which did meet the principal purpose test. These included the length of the content, whether the service was styled like a television channel and whether the videos were catalogued on a separate section. Interestingly, these examples don't chime well with the CJEU's recent judgment, so we might expect to see some recasting by Ofcom and any other EU regulators who have taken a similar view." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-19523090613017350592016-02-26T09:40:00.001-08:002016-02-26T09:40:14.032-08:00New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat<a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-347/14">CURIA - List of results</a>: "Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2015.<br />
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgerichtshof - Austria.<br />
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Concepts of ‘programme’ and ‘audiovisual media service’ - Determination of the principal purpose of an audiovisual media service - Comparability of the service to television broadcasting - Inclusion of short videos in a section of a newspaper’s website available on the Internet.<br />
Case C-347/14."<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.simkins.com/news/cjeu-ruling-on-what-is-an-an-audiovisual-media-service/">Analysis here</a> <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-65869193935888202982016-01-28T09:42:00.001-08:002016-01-28T09:42:25.744-08:00Justin Walford evidence to Leveson Inquiry<a href="http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-9-january-2012/justin-walford">View Section: Justin Walford :: Leveson Inquiry :: SayIt</a>:<br /><br />
"Mr Jay: In terms of your current position, you are currently the editorial legal counsel at News Group Newspaper Limited, which publishes the Sun and of course previously and formerly the News of the World, and you are effectively now the legal manager of the Sun; is that correct?<br /><br />
Justin Walford: It's not strictly correct, because in fact once Tom Crone had left, we had a new legal director came in called Simon Toms and a new lawyer joined me, Ben Beabey, and we are technically at the same status. We both report to Simon Toms.<br /><br />
Mr Jay<br />
Thank you. You were and you still are a barrister. You were called to the bar in 1981. You practised at libel chambers and in 1985 you joined the Express and you moved on to NGN in 2005.<br />
<br />
If it's not an unfair question to ask -- and tell me if it is -- is there a difference in culture, in general terms, between the Express Newspapers at the time you were there and then News International?" <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-41182724803111800622016-01-04T08:51:00.001-08:002016-01-04T08:51:55.714-08:00Media law cases in 2015: a short survey of the libel, privacy and data protection cases<a href="https://inforrm.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/media-law-cases-in-2015-a-short-survey-of-the-libel-privacy-and-data-protection-cases/">Media law cases in 2015: a short survey of the libel, privacy and data protection cases | Inforrm's Blog</a>: "The four particularly noteworthy cases of the year were, in chronological order:<br /><br />
Vidal-Hall v Google ([2015] EWCA Civ 311) in which the Court of Appeal disapplied section 13(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998 so that claims can now be made for distress damages in data protection, without proof of financial loss. This has opened the way for group actions in data protection – claims which are likely to be an important area of litigation in 2016. This decision was the subject of a popular Inforrm case comment. The decision is subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, due to be heard in October 2016.<br /><br />
OPO v Rhodes ([2015] UKSC 32) in which the Supreme Court discharged an interim injunction restraining the publication of a book. The Court clarified the tort of intentionally inflicting mental suffering, gave a powerful reminder of the importance of freedom of expression, provided important guidance on the form of injunctive relief and abolished imputations of an intention by operation of a rule of law. This case was the subject of two of our most popular posts of the year by Dan Tench (on the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court decisions).<br /><br />
Gulati v MGN([2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch)) – in which, in a detailed and comprehensive judgment (upheld by the Court of Appeal in December [2015] EWCA Civ 1291) Mann J awarded damages totalling £1.2 million were awarded to 8 victims of phone hacking. We had posts on the first instance and Court of Appeal<br /><br />
Lachaux v Independent Print [2015] EWHC 2242 (QB)) – the most important decision so far on the “serious harm” requirement under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2015, rejecting the submission that the law had not been substantially changed but accepting proof of serious harm by inference. We had an Inforrm case comment on this decision. An application for permission to appeal is presently pending before the Court of Appeal.<br /><br />
Libel<br /><br />
There were seven judgments after full libel trials – all of them by judge alone. Only one of those trials was against the mainstream media – and was won convincingly by newspaper. Overall the claimants were successful in 3 out of the 7 cases." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-85139934287425527512015-12-18T05:38:00.001-08:002015-12-18T05:38:50.938-08:00Future regulation of on-demand programme services<a href="http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/vod_procedures/">Future regulation of on-demand programme services | Ofcom</a>: "From 1 January 2016, Ofcom will be sole regulator (other than in relation to advertising) for on-demand programme services ("ODPS") under Part 4A of the Communications Act 2003 (the "Act"). <br />
<br />
This document summarises, for the convenience of providers and consumers of ODPS, arrangements which apply from that date.<br /><br />
We have collated links to forms for notifying services to Ofcom (and related guidance), as well as Rules and Guidance applying to ODPS, Interim Breach Procedures for investigating breaches of rules for on-demand programme services ("Interim Breach Procedures"), and Sanctions Procedures.<br /><br />
This document also consults on two substantive proposals. One is to introduce new Procedures for investigating breaches of rules for on-demand programme services to replace the Interim Breach Procedures, and to align more closely with the position for linear television broadcasting. The other is not to charge fees under section 368NA of the Act." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-2220867620221660192015-11-29T04:22:00.001-08:002015-11-29T04:22:20.978-08:00Caesar’s Wife and Sports Journalism – When is Close too Close?<a href="http://dropinpitch.com/2015/11/13/caesars-wife-and-sports-journalism-when-is-close-too-close/">Caesar’s Wife and Sports Journalism – When is Close too Close? | DropInPitch</a>: "There are now [2012] 22 Sun journalists who have been arrested as part of Operation Elveden, investigating corrupt payments to public officials. At the Sun from its inception, paying for news was the way the newsroom did business: the public were invited to sell stories by ringing the newsdesk. It is one thing to suborn a public official – but arguably quite another to agree a £300 tip fee to a soldier or prison officer. Nobody warned journalists at the time that what was seen as ‘doing one’s job’ might be illegal." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-16441871959633389922015-05-05T00:42:00.001-07:002015-05-05T00:42:59.869-07:00Readers of main British newspapers by voting intentions: British Election Study Wave 4https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R_Pw6GzwbWf5TK-S69A9WHkWJG4EZGSUTQmW6BknHl4/pubchart?oid=1373284884&format=interactive <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-58035405404331743182015-04-19T03:40:00.001-07:002015-04-19T03:40:16.148-07:00TV ‘exposure’ of Scientology halted by UK libel law split | World news | The Guardian<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/18/scientology-tv-exposure-halted-uk-libel-law-split-going-clear?CMP=twt_gu">TV ‘exposure’ of Scientology halted by UK libel law split | World news | The Guardian</a>: "Sky originally indicated that the Alex Gibney-directed film, which alleges abusive practices at the religion’s US headquarters, would be transmitted in the UK earlier this month in step with its American release.<br />
<br />
However, the Observer has learned that because Northern Ireland is not subject to the 2013 Defamation Act, the broadcaster could be exposed to libel claims from David Miscavige, the leader of the church, or others. This appears to have caused the company to postpone transmission, if not to cancel it entirely.<br /><br />
For technical reasons, Sky is unable to differentiate its signal between regions, rendering the same programme potentially exposed to pre-reform libel laws in Northern Ireland, but shielded in Britain where, among free-speech safeguards and reforms designed to limit frivolous claims or “libel tourism”, people or organisations must now show “serious harm” to reputation. Sky called the decision a delay rather than a cancellation, but did not deny it was taken for legal reasons." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-54390863279628046262015-04-19T03:17:00.001-07:002015-04-19T03:17:39.017-07:00Don’t prosecute journalists who pay for public-interest leaks, says ex-DPP<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/18/dont-prosecute-journalists-who-pay-for-public-interest-leaks-says-ex-dpp">Don’t prosecute journalists who pay for public-interest leaks, says ex-DPP | Law | The Guardian</a>: "The Crown Prosecution Service will now offer no evidence in the cases of nine journalists, who include Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World, and Clive Goodman, the paper’s former royal editor, who were awaiting trial.<br /><br />
The prosecution will continue of a further three Sun journalists: Chris Pharo, head of news, and district reporter Jamie Pyatt who both face a retrial after a jury failed to reach a verdict earlier this year, and Anthony France, the paper’s crime correspondent.<br /><br />
The decision to drop the cases came after a review forced on the CPS by an appeal court ruling last month that questioned prosecutors’ use of the charge of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office – an ancient common-law offence – to pursue the journalists.<br /><br />
The new CPS guidelines state that where journalists are involved with corrupt police officers, there would be a “high public interest” in prosecuting. But for journalists who deal with other types of officials, such as prison guards, the harm to the public interest in corrupt payments may be “finely balanced” against the lack of harm caused by the resulting stories.<br /><br />
In these circumstances, the prosecution of journalists “may not always be in the public interest”." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-30476587011454039832015-03-24T10:21:00.001-07:002015-03-24T10:21:12.648-07:00Coroners and Justice Act 2009: abolishing criminal libel<a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/73">Coroners and Justice Act 2009</a>: "Section 73 Abolition of common law libel offences etc: The following offences under the common law of England and Wales...are abolished—<br /><br />
(a) the offences of sedition and seditious libel;<br /><br />
(b) the offence of defamatory libel;<br /><br />
(c) the offence of obscene libel" <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-8210218839973861962015-03-04T16:03:00.001-08:002015-03-04T16:03:33.668-08:00Telecasting Dec 16 gangrape documentary would make media appear voice of perpetrator: I<a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/telecasting-dec-16-gangrape-documentary-would-make-media-appear-voice-of-perpetrator-ib-ministry/">Telecasting Dec 16 gangrape documentary would make media appear voice of perpetrator: I</a>: "Invoking provisions of Rule 6 (1) (d, e, f, i, k and o) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, the I&B ministry has “advised” all private satellite channels “not to telecast the documentary” or “any excerpts from therein” or “any programmes based on these excerpts”. The ministry has also stated that “any violation of the Programme Code shall invite such action as provided for in the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Rules framed thereunder as well as the terms and conditions stipulated in the uplinking/downlinking guidelines”. The I&B advisory has gone on to state that the “excerpts also contained his chauvinistic and derogatory views regarding women in general and the victim in particular” and that “these programmes also provided a platform for the convict to use the media to further his own case, especially when his appeal against his conviction, is sub-judice”.chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-401791723238273737.post-34497852868384428642015-02-04T06:23:00.001-08:002015-02-04T06:23:27.411-08:00When satire incites hatred: Charlie Hebdo and Article 10 speech<a href="http://journalism.cmpf.eui.eu/discussions/when-satire-incites-hatred/">When satire incites hatred: Charlie Hebdo and the freedom of expression debate | Strengthening Journalism in Europe: Tools, Networking, Training</a>: "The European Court’s refusal to rule on the cartoons notwithstanding, its existing caselaw does provide clear direction. Its guiding principle is simple and plain: the right to freedom of expression means that democratic societies need to be able to discuss current affairs and issues that concern us all, and we need to accept that some of us hold strong opinions. That’s what tolerance and pluralism is all about.<br /><br />
Inciting hatred against individuals simply on grounds of their religious beliefs oversteps the line; but satirising violent extremists within a religion is part and parcel of democratic society. Satirising a religion as such should also be permissible so long as any insults aren’t entirely gratuitous; but the line is crossed when hatred is incited against specific individuals on the grounds of their religious beliefs. That constitutes hate speech.<br /><br />
This means that cartoonists have every right to satirise Islamic fundamentalism, an issue that has dominated public debate ever since the early 2000s." <a href="https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/pengoopmcjnbflcjbmoeodbmoflcgjlk" style="font-size: 13px;">'via Blog this'</a>chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894132626803555691noreply@blogger.com0