Ukranian oligarchs using UK defamation laws to prevent stories about wealth

Rinat Akhmetov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "In 2008, a judgment was obtained from the High Court of Justice in London after Obozrevatel, a Ukrainian language Internet publication refused to retract false and libelous statements alleging that Mr. Akhmetov was connected to criminal activity and violence. The Obozrevatel report interviewed his former classmates and neighbors, and delved into his early years." 'via Blog this'

Audiovisual Media Services: European Regulators Group

Audiovisual Media Services: European Regulators Group: "European Commission has formally established a group of EU Regulatory Authorities in the field of Audiovisual Media Services. The Group brings together heads or high level representatives of national independent regulatory bodies in the field of audiovisual services, to advise the Commission in implementing the EU's Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) in a converged media age.

The European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services will advise and assist the Commission in its work to ensure consistent implementation of the AVMSD and other related fields in which the Commission can act. It will facilitate cooperation between regulatory bodies in the EU, and will also allow for an exchange of experience and good practice." 'via Blog this'

English court confirms existence of privacy tort

English court confirms existence of privacy tort | TechnoLlama: "Tugendhat J. had to consider whether misuse of private information, breach of confidence and breach of DPA statutory duties amount to a claim in tort. [He] first referred back to Campbell v MGN [2004] 2 WLR 1232 where Lord Nicholls established that breach of confidence was better encapsulated by another concept, that of misuse of private information, and commented that the tort, however labelled, “affords respect for one aspect of an individual’s privacy”. [He] also referred to Douglas v Hello [2005] EWCA Civ 595 and Imerman v Tchenguiz [2011] Fam 116 as other cases where the tort of misuse of private information had been mentioned.

The judge then concluded that “the tort of misuse of private information is a tort” within the meaning of the CPR rules." 'via Blog this'

ICO Consults on DP Guidance for the Media

ICO Consults on DP Guidance for the Media: "The draft guidance that was developed following the Leveson Report's recommendation that the Information Commissioner develops specific and comprehensive guidance on the application of the Data Protection Act to the press is now subject to public consultation. The final version of the guidance aims to help those working in the media to understand and comply with data protection law and good practice.

The deadline for responses to the consultation on the draft guidance is 22 April 2014" 'via Blog this'

Deal Or No Deal: the Murdoch factor and our democratic deficit

Deal Or No Deal: the Murdoch factor and our democratic deficit | openDemocracy: "It was surprising that the astute lawyers inside News Corp - who were copied on so many of the Michel emails - did not warn him that he was in danger of undermining the validity of the quasi-judicial process, such that it might be open to judicial review if the outcome were favourable to News Corp. Smith warned Michel, immediately after Hunt was put in charge of the plurality review, against giving News Corp's opponents a chance to attack the fairness of the process." Account of the failed 2011 News-BSkyB merger 'via Blog this'

A Year after Leveson: Has British press cleaned up its act?

A Year after Leveson: Has British press cleaned up its act? – Des Freedman | Inforrm's Blog: "weaknesses of the Leveson Inquiry, which heard a vast amount of evidence about the extent of corporate lobbying and intimate relations between media executives and ministers but shied away from making any meaningful changes to media ownership rules that might make individual companies less powerful" - and even less likely in the run-up to the 2015 General Election! 'via Blog this'

Putitstin v Ukraine: ECtHR recognises claims for defamation of the dead

Case Law, Strasbourg, Putitstin v Ukraine: court recognises claims for defamation of the dead – Hugh Tomlinson QC | Inforrm's Blog: "this decision opens up the possibility that Article 8 may, in appropriate circumstances, permit a claim to be brought for “defamation of the dead”.  In this case the applicant’s father was not named and only a person with detailed knowledge of the history would have understood the article to be alleging that he had collaborated with the Gestapo.  It seems clear, however, that a serious defamatory allegation against a recently deceased person could constitute a breach of the family’s Article 8 rights. This is, potentially, a radical new development." 'via Blog this'