22 Mar 2010 | News, United Kingdom
On 23rd March there will be a mass lobby of MPs for libel law reform at the House of Commons from 2pm. Some of the parties are wavering — they don’t want to commit to reforms unless they are under pressure to. We need everyone to help to bring that about before manifestos are published and Parliament rises for the election. Can you come to a mass lobby in the House of Commons on Tuesday 23rd at 2pm? This is the closest we’ve been to fundamental libel law reform in a century, but we need everyone to help it succeed.
(more…)
19 Mar 2010 | Index Index, minipost, Uncategorized
A prominent South African newspaper has accused the African National Congress Youth League of using intimidation and fear to silence journalists. An editorial in the Business Day claimed that the youth wing of South Africa’s governing party have made “blatant attempts” to limit freedom of expression. Nineteen political correspondents have written an open letter of complaint after youth league spokesman Floyd Shivambu threatened several reporters when attempting to ‘leak’ a dossier. The National Editors Forum has also urged president Jacob Zuma to rein in the organisation from making personal attacks on individual media workers.
19 Mar 2010 | Uncategorized
The divisive former Commons speaker Michael Martin returned to the spotlight yesterday in an effort to obstruct libel reform plans.
The Labour peer is attempting to use an arcane House of Lords tool to delay reforms that will limit the fees which lawyers can claim for successful “no-win, no-fee” defamation cases.
Justice secretary Jack Straw plans to reduce these success bonuses by 90 per cent, as he believes they produce a chilling effect that hinders freedom of expression and a free press.
However, Martin has tabled a “motion of regret” that will call for more consultation on the measures, which were due to come into force next month.
The Daily Telegraph reports:
“If Lord Martin’s attempt succeeds but no time can be found for the debate before parliament is dissolved for the election, the reform package will be lost.”
Martin himself is no stranger to spending thousands of pounds on lawyers’ fees.
In 2007, he spent nearly £20,000 of taxpayers’ money on legal advice from the libel specialists Carter-Ruck to challenge a serious of negative stories about him in the press. He also infamously used £150,000 of public funds to block the publication of MPs’ expenses under the Freedom of Information Act.
Martin, who became the first parliamentary speaker to be forced out of office for 300 years, is being supported by the pressure group Lawyers for Media Standards, who have threatened a judicial review of Straw’s plans. And yet, the group has faced its own legal problems in recent weeks, according to the Guardian diary:
“Libel lawyers have written to Jack Straw complaining about his plans to reduce their so-called “success fees” in cases against the media. They approached him as “Lawyers for Media Standards”, which even he must have thought sounded quite impressive. But not so Companies House, which told them this title sounded far too official and regulatory to be allowed. They’ve now had to re-christen themselves “Lawyers for Media Rights”, though some say they should have done with it and call themselves “Lawyers for Huge Fees.”
Blogger and author Richard Wilson did a little digging on the group. Turns out the firm behind it represents the British Chriropractic Association in its action against Simon Singh. Funny that.
19 Mar 2010 | Uncategorized
David Thorne is already an internet legend. He’s the man responsible for this drawing of a spider:
If you’ve never seen that drawing of a spider, then you need to read this now.
Anyway, Thorne recently posted an article about his (fake) plans to become a drug dealer, which drew the attention of South Australia police.
He received this letter:
Clearly, this kind of thing can’t be taken lying down. Thorne responded:
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 26 February 2010 8.12pm
To: Michael Harding
Subject: Censorship
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your letter. At no time have I condoned the use of drugs. I simply stated that I wish to purchase and sell them at a profit. I do however understand the importance of censorship. Without an enforced system of guidance from agencies such as yours, people would be forced to exercise their own discretion.
Regards, David.
It gets better. Read the whole lot here
