The “New” New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter

The “New” New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter - The “New” New York Times: Free Speech Lawyering in the Age of Google and Twitter: "While they have been criticized for some of their decisions, the lawyers at companies like Google and Twitter are reminiscent of newspaper lawyers of old in their conscious thinking about and focus on freedom of expression. Their companies are not perfect, just as the New York Times is not perfect. Fifty years from now, though, we will remember these lawyers and their impact on how millions of people experience freedom of expression. And their paradigmatic decisions already have played significant roles in some of the most important freedom of expression episodes in modern times, including the leaking of classified documents to WikiLeaks and The Guardian, the sharing of anti-Islamic videos on YouTube, and the legislative debate over telecommunications and copyright rules such as “network neutrality” and “SOPA.”" 'via Blog this'

PCC RULING AGAINST DAILY MAIL - now IPSO

PCC RULING AGAINST DAILY MAIL – MY VERDICT | EU ROPE: "The Daily Mail’s so-called ‘corrections’ on this issue have been small and obscurely tucked away; they make no reference to my complaint; do not explain the context of the corrections and the reasons for them; do not state that the paper broke the Editors’ Code, and do not even have to refer to the PCC ruling. If this is the only consequence for sloppy, incorrect, alarmist and often xenophobic journalism, nothing is ever going to change, is it?
Until we have a proper, effective, independent press regulator in the UK – as required by The Leveson Inquiry – we will not be able to bring newspapers to account. My efforts to challenge just one Daily Mail story took most of this year; it should not have taken so long for the PCC to reach their (inadequate) verdict." 'via Blog this'

What is media law? EU regulation of free to play games: hot topic or hot air?

EU regulation of free to play games: hot topic or hot air? | Gamer/Law: "The European Commission has just published a press release and report on the investigation into free to play games which it is coordinating within the European Union.  This follows my report back in February 2014 that the European Commission (one of the three legislative bodies in the EU and the prime policy maker) had decided to step into the increasingly thorny field of regulation of free to play games and in-app purchases in the online and mobile worlds.  Now the Commission has, seemingly out of the blue, issued a press release explaining what it has been up to all this time.

In this post I explain what’s going on and what’s REALLY important about the new guidance being issued to Apple and Google. " 'via Blog this'

Media Plurality in the UK: Where Do We Go From Here?

Media Plurality in the UK: Where Do We Go From Here? | LSE Media Policy Project: "What happens after the Ofcom analysis?

Probably a lot of occasionally interesting discussion; just possibly a new media plurality regime; most likely, nothing. The key questions, whatever your analysis, are what you then do and who makes the decisions. To take the easier question of who decides, the Government predictably gives a firm “non” to the suggestion that European Union tanks might be parked on our media lawn.  This is understandable, given Government’s natural desire to be able to wield influence over the media, but may be short-sighted if media markets continue to become more multi-national. It is also rather uncollegiate in limiting EU interventions in other Member States where media owners’ behaviour might be more detrimental to democracy and governments less effective at maintaining the media freedoms they were required to demonstrate at accession to the EU. The Government response seems to side-step the question of whether the final arbiter should be the independent regulator or a Government Minister. The Lords Committee seeks rather complexly to balance the desirability of independent arbitration with an element of democratic accountability. However, ultimately, it seems to me that politicians are elected to take such decisions and the objective should be that we have open and independent advice from a body such as Ofcom and a transparent, reasoned decision from Government." 'via Blog this'

Changes Are Coming to Scottish Broadcasting

Philip Schlesinger: ‘Yes’ or ‘No,’ Changes Are Coming to Scottish Broadcasting | LSE Media Policy Project: "Scottish Government’s White Paper (the blueprint for independence negotiations) has pointed to possible co-regulation with Ofcom, another version of the joint venture idea mooted for the BBC.

If it is a no on 18 September, would these ideas simply disappear? That is hardly likely. The BBC is gearing up for the next Charter Review in 2016, a good time for lobbying for the Scottish interest. The SNP’s nascent Plan B would doubtless raise questions about the corporation’s formal accountability to the Scottish Parliament as well as the adequacy of Scottish representation on the BBC Trust and Ofcom’s board, much in tune with the call for more devolved broadcasting governance made earlier this year by the Silk Commission in Wales." 'via Blog this'

Cooke: First judgment under the new Defamation Act analysis

Farrer - First judgment under the new Defamation Act: "This highly anticipated judgment, the first to be decided under the Defamation Act 2013, looked specifically at the new "serious harm" test under s1(1). In finding against the claimants, the court made it clear that the threshold for a statement to be defamatory had been raised.
The court attached significant weight to early apologies and suggested that evidence will almost always be required to pass the serious harm test. However, on the meaning of "serious harm" itself, discussion was somewhat limited. The judge said that this was an ordinary term in common usage, providing little clarity on how it differs from the previous common law approach. " 'via Blog this'

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014)

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014):

"34. The 2013 Act was the product of extensive parliamentary scrutiny. A draft Bill was produced in March 2011 for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee reported on the draft Bill on 19th October 2011. The Defamation Bill itself was then presented to the House of Commons on 20th May 2012 and after detailed consideration in both Houses received Royal Assent on 25th April 2013.

35. Both Mr Tomlinson and Mr Price have sought to refer to Hansard to cite remarks made in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, relying on Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. I consider that it is proper to refer to the Ministerial foreword to the draft Bill, to the Joint Committee's report on the draft Bill, and to the Explanatory Notes to the Act, to identify the mischief at which it was aimed. I also consider that the parliamentary history, and in particular any respect in which the Act differs from the original draft Bill, may be highly illuminating. It is also proper to refer to statements made by the promoters of the Bill (that is to say the sponsoring minister in each House or the proposer of any successful amendment) in order to resolve a genuine ambiguity in the Act." 'via Blog this'