Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds panic myth: The infamous radio broadcast did not cause a nationwide hysteria

Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds panic myth: The infamous radio broadcast did not cause a nationwide hysteria.: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America’s newspapers. Radio had siphoned off advertising revenue from print during the Depression, badly damaging the newspaper industry. So the papers seized the opportunity presented by Welles’ program to discredit radio as a source of news. The newspaper industry sensationalized the panic to prove to advertisers, and regulators, that radio management was irresponsible and not to be trusted. In an editorial titled “Terror by Radio,” the New York Times reproached “radio officials” for approving the interweaving of “blood-curdling fiction” with news flashes “offered in exactly the manner that real news would have been given.” Warned Editor and Publisher, the newspaper industry’s trade journal, “The nation as a whole continues to face the danger of incomplete, misunderstood news over a medium which has yet to prove ... that it is competent to perform the news job.”" 'via Blog this'

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S.11 journalistic exceptions to searches

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: "11 Meaning of “excluded material”. (1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act “excluded material” means—
(a) personal records which a person has acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purposes of any paid or unpaid office and which he holds in confidence;
(b) human tissue or tissue fluid which has been taken for the purposes of diagnosis or medical treatment and which a person holds in confidence;
(c) journalistic material which a person holds in confidence and which consists— (i)of documents; or (ii)of records other than documents." This is also read into S.22(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000 - and thus is relied on by David Miranda's lawyers in the forthcoming judicial review 'via Blog this'

The Home Secretary’s defence in the Miranda judicial review

The Home Secretary’s defence in the Miranda judicial review | Head of Legal: "The government argues that any interference was proportionate to those aims in view of the lack of alternatives to the use of Schedule 7, the urgency and gravity of the situation and the narrow time window the police had in which to act. A key plank of its argument is that this is not a case involving an attempt to identify journalists’ sources, unlike the Sanoma Uitgevers case relied on by the claimants. While in such cases the European Court of Human Rights gives strong protection to those sources, in this type of case, which simply involves the normal application of security provisions in a way that happens to impact upon someone working with journalists, no special protection is given. In particular, the case law makes clear that no prior judicial or independent scrutiny is required before documents are detained." 'via Blog this'

TSE & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1308 (QB)

TSE & Anor v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1308 (QB) (23 May 2011): "It is now clear the test is whether the Claimant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information in question. See McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73 per Buxton LJ (with whom Latham and Longmore LJJ agreed, at para 11, further cited in Murray at para 27). The question is objective. As Lord Hope put it in Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] 2 AC 457: "The question is what a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities would feel if she was placed in the same position as the claimant.." In Murray v Express Newspapers Ltd [2009] Ch 481 the Court of Appeal stated: "The question of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy is a broad one, which takes account of all the circumstances of the case. They include the attributes of the claimant, the nature of the activity in which the claimant was engaged, the place at which it was happening, the nature and purpose of the intrusion, the absence of consent and whether it was known or could be inferred, the effect on the claimant and the circumstances in which and the purposes for which the information came into the hands of the publisher.." [para 36]" 'via Blog this'

Superinjunctions, gagging orders and injunctions: the full list

Superinjunctions, gagging orders and injunctions: the full list | Siobhain Butterworth & Maya Wolfe-Robinson | Law | theguardian.com: "Disclosure in the public interest is one of two main defences to privacy actions (the other is that the information is already in the public domain). Where, as in Ferdinand's case and Max Mosley's, a privacy case goes to trial, the public interest defence is usually argued vociferously. We might ask then, out of interest, how often did editors put forward a public interest defence in the spate of privacy injunctions that produced so much sound and fury only a short while ago?" 'via Blog this'

Google Still Taking a Beating Over Max Mosley S&M Party Search Results

Google Still Taking a Beating Over Max Mosley S&M Party Search Results - Search Engine Watch (#SEW): "Google said in a French court this week that it had removed hundreds of pages for Mosley and stands ready to remove others he identifies, but that the law does not support his demand for the creation of "an unprecedented new Internet censorship tool," according to Bloomberg." 'via Blog this'

Leveson Report: Cross Party Royal Charter

Leveson Report: Cross Party Royal Charter - Publications - GOV.UK: "Following further discussions on independent press self-regulation based on the Leveson Report, this final version of the Royal Charter has been agreed by all three political leaders and will now be taken forward.
Amendments made since the 11 October 2013 publication are explained in the accompanying Explanatory Note" 'via Blog this'