Thursday, 31 October 2013
Playing for Time: The Politics of the Press Regulation Debate
Playing for Time: The Politics of the Press Regulation Debate | LSE Media Policy Project: "The Recognition Panel set up by the Royal Charter can issue a de facto verdict on whether the system has succeeded or failed from, at the earliest, a year and three months after the Charter has become effective. A change in the final draft means that, for these purposes, the Charter only becomes effective once the last member of the Recognition Panel has been appointed. That suggests an obvious tactic of giving the go-slow signal to those tasked with setting up the Panel. We believe that is what has happened. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s draft schedule is aiming for June 2014, which means a report from the Recognition Panel in autumn 2015." 'via Blog this'
Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency - Law Commission
Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency - Law Commission: An excellent primer on how to improve the common law offences: "The related common law offence of outraging public decency involves indecent actions or displays that may cause offence to members of the public. We are considering the fault elements of both offences, and the relationship of public nuisance to statutory environmental and public order offences." 'via Blog this'
Monday, 28 October 2013
Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret
Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret The Guardian: "The papers also reveal:
• GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone "well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.
• GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court.
• GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling", including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and America's National Security Agency."
You might argue that of course the Guardian would identify Lord Carlile. 'via Blog this'
• GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone "well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.
• GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court.
• GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling", including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and America's National Security Agency."
You might argue that of course the Guardian would identify Lord Carlile. 'via Blog this'
Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret
Leaked memos reveal GCHQ efforts to keep mass surveillance secret The Guardian: "The papers also reveal:
• GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone "well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.
• GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court.
• GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling", including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and America's National Security Agency."
You might argue that of course the Guardian would identify Lord Carlile. 'via Blog this'
• GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone "well beyond" what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.
• GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court.
• GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling", including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and America's National Security Agency."
You might argue that of course the Guardian would identify Lord Carlile. 'via Blog this'
Why the Daily Mirror lost the 1959 Liberace v. Cassandra libel trial
Roy Greenslade: Why the Daily Mirror lost the Liberace libel trial | Media | theguardian.com: "Fifty years ago one of the most extraordinary libel trials of all time took place in Britain. The flamboyant American entertainer Liberace had sued the Daily Mirror columnist William Connor (who wrote under the byline Cassandra) for implying that he was homosexual." 'via Blog this'
Finnish broadcasting company professionals await court ruling
Finnish broadcasting company professionals await court ruling | HUMANERIGHTSEUROPE: "December 2007, Ristamäki and Korvola were charged with defamation by a public prosecutor and K.U. claimed compensation for defamation in the same proceedings. The applicants contested the charge and the claim on the grounds that all of the information in the programme had been correct.
However, they were convicted of defamation in May 2008 and ordered to pay K.U. EUR 1,800 in compensation and EUR 1,500 in costs. After one unsuccessful appeal the Finnish Supreme Court refused the applicants leave for a second appeal in December 2009.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ristamäki and Mr Korvola complain about the Finnish courts’ judgments against them.
The European Court of Human Rights will announce its decision in the case Ristamäki and Korvola v. Finland (no. 66456/09) on Tuesday 29 October." 'via Blog this'
However, they were convicted of defamation in May 2008 and ordered to pay K.U. EUR 1,800 in compensation and EUR 1,500 in costs. After one unsuccessful appeal the Finnish Supreme Court refused the applicants leave for a second appeal in December 2009.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ristamäki and Mr Korvola complain about the Finnish courts’ judgments against them.
The European Court of Human Rights will announce its decision in the case Ristamäki and Korvola v. Finland (no. 66456/09) on Tuesday 29 October." 'via Blog this'
Lord McAlpine libel row with Sally Bercow formally settled in high court
Lord McAlpine libel row with Sally Bercow formally settled in high court | UK news | theguardian.com: "McAlpine's lawyer, Andrew Reid, said: "Today has seen closure of a piece of litigation which has now become the leading case in terms of internet responsibility.
"Our client had never wanted the situation to get to this stage. It was always his intention to avoid litigation if at all possible, just as it was always Mrs Bercow's intention, until today, not to provide an apology satisfactory to our client. It is to be hoped that lessons will be learned: This litigation could so easily have been avoided if common sense had prevailed over political positioning. In January of this year, Lord McAlpine made a 'without prejudice' offer to Mrs Bercow to settle at a substantially lower sum than his leading counsel, Sir Edward Garnier QC, advised that he was likely to obtain if the matter went to full trial.
"He made the offer in an attempt to avoid the detrimental effect of litigation on his health, but sadly, Mrs Bercow was not prepared at the relevant time to avail herself of this reasonable offer."" 'via Blog this'
"Our client had never wanted the situation to get to this stage. It was always his intention to avoid litigation if at all possible, just as it was always Mrs Bercow's intention, until today, not to provide an apology satisfactory to our client. It is to be hoped that lessons will be learned: This litigation could so easily have been avoided if common sense had prevailed over political positioning. In January of this year, Lord McAlpine made a 'without prejudice' offer to Mrs Bercow to settle at a substantially lower sum than his leading counsel, Sir Edward Garnier QC, advised that he was likely to obtain if the matter went to full trial.
"He made the offer in an attempt to avoid the detrimental effect of litigation on his health, but sadly, Mrs Bercow was not prepared at the relevant time to avail herself of this reasonable offer."" 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)