Index on Censorship: Leveson, the Royal Charter and press regulation
Demotix
Index on Censorship views press freedom as one core part of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. Read more »
Thatcher: Paradoxes of secrecy
In this Index on Censorship magazine article from 1988, investigative reporter Duncan Campbell claimed that former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died this week, was “utterly disdainful of press freedom and open government”
David Fowler / Shutterstock.com
Paradoxes of secrecy – free speech in the Thatcher years
Index responds to the Royal Charter
In response to this week’s deal on press regulation, Index on Censorship chief executive Kirsty Hughes said:
“Index is against the introduction of a Royal Charter that determines the details of establishing a press regulator in the UK — the involvement of politicians undermines the fundamental principle that the press holds politicians to account. Politicians have now stepped in as ringmaster and our democracy is tarnished as a result.”
She also said:
“The fact that this requirement is now being applied to all Royal Charters is a rushed and fudged attempt to pretend this is not just a press law; it resembles precisely the kind of political manoeuvring we see in Hungary today – where the government is amending its own constitution through a parliamentary vote undermining key principles of their democracy.
In spite of David Cameron’s claims, there can be no doubt that what has been established is statutory underpinning of the press regulator. This introduces a layer of political control that is extremely undesirable. On this sad day, Britain has abandoned a democratic principle.
But beyond that, the Royal Charter’s loose definition of a ‘relevant publisher’ as a ‘website containing news-related material’ means blogs could be regulated under this new law as well. This will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on everyday people’s web use.
Bloggers could find themselves subject to exemplary damages in court, due to the fact that they were not part of a regulator that was not intended for them in the first place. This mess of legislation has been thrown together with alarming haste: there’s little doubt we’ll repent for a while to come.”
In addition to issues over damages, there have been further problems raised about apologies. Index’s News Editor Padraig Reidy said:
“There are also concerns about the proposed regulator’s power to “direct” the placement of apologies.
Again, this is “Leveson compliant” — the Lord Justice himself stated “The power to direct the nature, extent and placement of apologies should lie with the Board”.
This is also really problematic, suggesting as it does that a Quango can determine what is and isn’t published in newspapers, and where. This may seem angel-on-pinhead stuff, but there is a world of difference between “direct” and “require”. While apologies may be desirable, it’s simply not safe to give an external power with state underpinning the power to tell editors what to put in papers. Forced publication is a sinister perversion of free expression, and has no place in the British press or anywhere else.”
Read our analysis of the Leveson Inquiry report’s recommendations here.
Index Freedom of Expression Awards 2013
Thursday 21 March, 6.30pm
Inner Temple, London EC4Y 7HL
This year’s Awards are an extraordinary celebration of the courageous and determined individuals around the world who have stood up for free expression, often at great personal risk.
The 2013 Index Awards nominees showcase both some of the biggest stories of the past year and some equally important stories that have slipped under the radar.
Our nominees have all demonstrated in different ways their passionate belief the freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.
Be inspired by this year’s heroes. Celebrate freedom of expression. Support Index on Censorship.
See this year’s nominees here
Tags: Index Awards 2013
Leveson fiasco: costs and other questions
Two days after the publication of the all-party agreed Royal Charter on “self-regulation” of the press, there’s seems no further clarity on some issues of enormous concern. Apart from the statute required to “underpin” the regulator itself, and the question of who and who isn’t a “relevant news publisher”, issues of exemplary damages, costs and apologies have alarmed many in the media and beyond.
On BBC News yesterday, Private Eye editor Ian Hislop outlined his concerns about the new press regulator. Hislop, whose publication was not part of the Press Complaints Commission, said he was concerned that publications outside the regulator (and the debate still rages over who is and isn’t supposed to be inside the regulator) would face not only exemplary damages, but also possibly have to pay the costs of any case even if they won.
Clause NC27A of the Crime and Courts bill, which sets out the costs regime does state that the defendant must pay costs in any case, unless the judge believes the case could not possibly have been settled by the regulator’s arbitration wing – i.e. if this would have ended up in court anyway.
This is quite definitely “Leveson Compliant”, (see par 67 and 68 of the Executive Summary of Lord Justice Leveson’s report and is essentially punitive. One wonders would it pass the test of a “fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”, as laid out in article of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is extremely likely that a case following this procedure will end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. And quite rightly so. It’s bizarre, unjust and coercive.
There are also concerns about the proposed regulator’s power to “direct” the placement of apologies.
Again, this is “Leveson compliant” — the Lord Justice himself stated “The power to direct the nature, extent and placement of apologies should lie with the Board”.
This is also really problematic, suggesting as it does that a Quango can determine what is and isn’t published in newspapers, and where. This may seem angel-on-pinhead stuff, but there is a world of difference between “direct” and “require”. While apologies may be desirable, it’s simply not safe to give an external power with state underpinning the power to tell editors what to put in papers. Forced publication is a sinister perversion of free expression, and has no place in the British press or anywhere else.
Index responds to collapse of Leveson press reform talks
In response to the breakdown of cross-party press regulation discussion, Index CEO Kirsty Hughes today said:
‘The Prime Minister is right not to have made a shoddy compromise with Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, which would have meant statutory underpinning of press regulation. Politicians should not pass laws that specifically control the press if those politicians are to be held to account by a free press.
“The Royal Charter is itself a compromise as it does mean some political involvement – which Index opposes. It is also quite wrong to say – as supporters of the statutory route have – that David Cameron is doing what the press barons want. A tough new independent regulator whether set up by Royal Charter, or preferably by a route with no political involvement at all, is a big step forward compared to the previous system of self-regulation, which doubtless many of the press barons would still prefer.
“Cameron’s decision to put the Royal Charter approach to a vote is a risky one – and Index is concerned to see MPs voting in even this form on press regulation. But Cameron’s decision to go to a vote has clearly been forced by the threat of wrecking amendments being added into several bills, including one that is already threatening the passage of the Defamation Bill, which Leveson himself said should be kept separate from his work.”
Financial Times betrays central principle in stance on media freedom
The Financial Times, the Guardian, and the Independent this week shifted their position towards a compromise on press regulation. Index criticises the change of stance, which risks threatening press freedom
