24 Mar 2009 | Uncategorized
I’ve just got back from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee meeting on press standards, privacy and libel in Whitehall.
The meeting was split into two sittings: the first with journalists, and the second with members of the Press Complaints Commission and the Press Standards Board of Finance.
The journalists’ panel addressed an issue very close to Index’s heart: the UK’s defamation law, and its chilling effect on reporters and editors.
Jeff Edwards of the Mirror told how his paper sometimes found itself shying away from even seemingly innocuous stories about the super-rich, such was the fear of massive legal fees should the subject take umbrage.
Sean O’Neill, crime and security editor of The Times, went further, saying that the use of Conditional Fee Agreements in libel cases is ‘distorting journalism and justice’. He claimed ‘predatory lawyers’ were ready to pounce on newspapers, particularly newspapers that attempted to link certain individuals to Islamist terror and extremism.
On the issue of ‘prior notification’ of stories, which Max Mosley had raised as a possible remedy for the publication of stories that invade privacy, Edwards pointed out that enshrining such a system could prove unworkable: people who knew they were to be the subjects of stories could simply make themselves unavailable to the newspaper, turning off their phone, leaving journalists on a deadline hamstrung.
The Guardian’s Bad Science columnist, Ben Goldacre, raised the idea of a press small claims court, where claims of defamation could be settled quickly, with minimal fees.
The second session focused on the role of the Press Complaints Commission. Under sustained questioning, PCC chair Sir Christopher Meyer launched a sound defence of the PCC and press self-regulation, saying it was the only way to protect free expression while simultaneously encouraging responsible journalism.
Responding to the increasingly multi-platform nature of newspapers, (the Sun’s new online radio show, will for example, be subject to the PCC) Meyer said he hoped that one day soon Ofcom would ‘move out of content’, allowing all media to self regulate.
You can watch the meeting here
23 Mar 2009 | Uncategorized
Lib Dem MP Evan Harris hopes to lead a debate this evening on an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill in an attempt to have the laws of seditious libel and criminal defamation scrapped. Seditious libel is an archaic law that makes it an offence to bring into disaffection the state and its institutions.
He’s being supported by Index on Censorship (of course), English PEN, Liberty and individuals including Rowan Atkinson and Geoffrey Robertson QC.
Harris told The Times today that ‘seditious libel and criminal defamation laws are a stain on our legal system and a terrible example to set in a world where free expression is so often restricted and oppressed. Parliament should seize this chance to get rid of them.’
The bill as it stands does contain other points of note for anyone interested in free expression. Chiefly, there is a clause which might make it easier to bring prosecutions for incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation. Fears similar to those raised around the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred Act have been raised, with comic performers such as Atkinson and Christopher Biggins complaining that humour could suffer if people are hemmed in by concerns about the law. Writing in the Daily Mail, gay actor Biggins warned against the ‘silent void of puritanism’ that could result.
Harris, however, believes there are still sufficient caveats in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act to render the possibility of prosecution very slim indeed.
The bill could also make it an offence to possess ‘pseudophotographs’ (that is to say ‘fakes’) and images, even cartoons, portraying under-18s in pornographic scenarios. The precedent does not bode well here: last year in Australia, a man was prosecuted for possession of drawings of Simpsons characters in sexual positions. Liberty has said it would be tragic ‘if the creation of an offence aimed at private cartoons and drawings reduced the police resources available to tackle real child pornography or other circumstances where victims are clearly forced to submit to sexual abuse.’
Liberty also raises the legitimate question of how a drawing of a 17-year-old is meant to be distinguished from a drawing of an 18-year-old.
Of some concern in this portmanteau bill is Clause 11, which allows the Secretary of State to decide whether or not coroners’ inquests can be held in private. While the government brought in certain amendments, meaning any move must be approved by a high court judge, it must remain a worry that such an important part of the legal process may be made secret as and when the government deems it ‘necessary’.
On the upside, ani-ID and database campaigners have welcomed the governments announcement that Clause 152 of the bill, which would have allowed sharing of personal data across government departments, is to be removed.
23 Mar 2009 | News
Sir Ken Macdonald QC, Former Director of Public Prosecutions, has joined the board of Index on Censorship.
(more…)
23 Mar 2009 | News
A parliamentary report published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights has warned that counter-terrorism laws are being abused by police in their dealing with protests.
(more…)
