Announcement: Launch of new survey on the legal experiences and views of journalists and online publishers

Posted on May 14, 2013 by

A new survey for journalists and bloggers, which can be found at this link, aims to collect information about their experiences of and views on libel and privacy law

A system of arbitration is at the heart of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, and different versions are included in the the government’s draft Royal Charter and the industry’s own proposals [PDF].

The suggestion is that an arbitration service could deal with libel and privacy complaints that would otherwise go to court.

Last minute amendments to the Crime and Courts bill (now Act) would allow for bloggers to opt into the regulatory arbitration system and receive costs benefits.

Additionally and separately, recommendations have also been made for Mediation and Early Resolution in defamation disputes.

However, there is very little solid data about the nature and quantity of legal claims made against the media, including small bloggers. Because the majority of libel claims, for example, are believed to be resolved out of court, there is no complete record of disputes.

In short, little is known about bloggers’ and journalists’ actual legal experiences and opinions.

In an effort to build a better picture and to help inform the development of new alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, I am launching a survey as the final part of my doctoral project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London.

This questionnaire is open to all types of journalists and online writers who expect their readership to be predominantly based in England and/or Wales.

Please take part and share your experiences and encourage your colleagues and friends to participate as well.

All data will be collected anonymously with no identification of organisations or individuals.

The questionnaire can be found here:

Many thanks for your help! If you have any questions you can email me (judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk) or tweet me (@jtownend).

About the project

This survey is part of Judith Townend’s doctoral project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London. The research project, which has been given ethical approval by the CLJJ, explores how journalists and online writers are affected by libel and privacy law, as well as other social and legal factors. It will draw attention to the issues faced by online writers and journalists, and help inform the development of resources in this area.

About this questionnaire

  • The questionnaire is open to all types of journalists and online writers who expect their readership to be predominantly based in England and/or Wales.
  • It should take between 10 and 30 minutes to complete, depending on your experiences and views. Some questions require an answer so you can be taken to the next relevant question.
  • All data will be collected anonymously with no identification of organisations or individuals.
  • The information you have submitted will included in a final report to be published in 2013/14, which may be used for future online and print publications.
  • Please contact Judith Townend with any questions, or to obtain the final results.

Contact details:

Judith Townend, c/o Peter Aggar, Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism, City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44 (0)20 7040 8167

E-mail: judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk

Posted in academic research, blogging, defamation, leveson inquiry, media ethics, media law, media law resources, media regulation, privacy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Law and Media Round Up – 13 May 2013

Posted on May 15, 2013 by

Last week’s round up:

The Guardian is attempting to overturn the Attorney General’s veto of the publication of Prince Charles’ correspondence with seven Government departments. An application for judicial review was heard over two days last week by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, with Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Globe.

Full Law and Media Round Up – 13 May 2013 at Inforrm’s Blog.

Posted in blogging, defamation, journalism, media law, media law resources, media regulation, privacy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Law and Media Round Up – 6 May 2013

Posted on May 7, 2013 by

On 3 May 2013, journalists, lawyers, academics and campaigners marked World Press Freedom Day. Article 19 launched ‘The Right to Blog’ – a new policy paper “that calls for lawmakers to better promote and protect the rights of bloggers domestically and internationally”.

via Law and Media Round Up – 6 May 2013 | Inforrm’s Blog.

Posted in defamation, freedom of expression, human rights, media law, media law mop-up, media law resources | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Law and Media Round Up – 29 April 2013

Posted on April 30, 2013 by

The biggest news of the week is that the Defamation Bill received Royal Assent and is now the Defamation Act 2013, three years after the publication of Lord Lester’s original Defamation Bill. Inforrm reported the news and context here; a commentary by Jo Glanville, director of English PEN, can be found here. Robert Sharp, also of English PEN, has dissected some of the detail here and here. A report in the Belfast Telegraph reports that Index on Censorship is questioning Stormont’s decision to block the Act from becoming law in Northern Ireland.

Full law and Media Round Up ( 29 April 2013) on Inforrm’s Blog…

Posted in defamation, journalism, media law mop-up, media regulation, newspapers | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The ‘public’ in the Public Inquiry

Posted on April 25, 2013 by

This post originally appeared in Three-D Issue 20 – the Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association (Meccsa) newsletter. 

The public was supposed to be at the heart of the Leveson Inquiry. When it was announced, David Cameron described how the ‘whole country has been shocked by the revelations of the phone hacking scandal’.[1] Of course, establishing exactly how the public feels is a notoriously difficult exercise, but what was clear in July 2011 – two years after Nick Davies’ explosive phone hacking revelations in the Guardian – was that national newspapers finally deemed the phone hacking scandal the subject of public outrage, and the politicians reacted.

How much role did the public actually play in proceedings, then? At Bournemouth University’s ‘Media Reform Post-Leveson’ conference in February, I argued that while media and political elites provided the dominant voices in courtroom 73, the Leveson Inquiry broke new ground for court and political reporting. For the first time a public inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005 was played out live on the internet.[2]

Online media provided a chance for ordinary members of the public, non-profit groups, academic researchers and small media organisations to expand and question mainstream media narratives, as they watched, blogged and tweeted proceedings. Digital communication liberated debate, enabling members of the public to report ‘in the public press all that he has seen and heard’, as Lord Denning put it[3], in accordance with a longstanding legal tradition of open justice.

Additionally, it improved UK citizens’ right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to receive – as well as impart – information and ideas. The public’s increased access to inquiry resources and reporting tools does not necessarily indicate a greater role on the ‘news stage’, but it opens up the possibility for greater public influence on news discourse, and beyond that, political debate.

One of the aims of the Bournemouth conference was ‘to develop fresh initiatives to encourage media plurality’ and the Media Reform Coalition has asked how we can ensure ‘a genuine plurality of voices and views in the news’. Opening up courts information and data is one such way. Giving the public greater digital access to legal material at source – such as Inquiry transcripts and witness evidence – permits the public to obtain a direct account, which does not depend on news selection criteria by a small number of dominant media outlets.

The majority of the public may not wish to access the raw material, but it at least allows for the possibility of more ‘voices and views in the news’. Those who do seek out information at source will be better equipped to participate in public debate through online media, including social media, blogs and media organisations’ sites and challenge or contribute to journalists’ versions of events. There are important legal and ethical considerations to make when disseminating courts data online[4], but Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry showed us that some steps towards digital open justice, of benefit to journalists as well as the wider public, are straightforward and can be taken with little fuss.

[1] Guardian.co.uk (2011) David Cameron’s speech on phone hacking – the full text, 8 July, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/08/david-cameron-speech-phone-hacking

[2] For a full version of the paper, see: Townend, J (2013) ‘Leveson online: A publicly reported inquiry’, Ethical Space, Vol. 10, No. 1

[3] Denning, Alfred Thompson (1955) The road to justice, Wm. S. Hein Publishing, p. 64

[4] The Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism has been consulting journalists, academics and researchers on these issues as part of its ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project.

Posted in access to justice, blogging, digital open justice, journalism, leveson inquiry, media ethics, media law resources | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The legal relevance of being a ‘blog’: a ‘pretty straightforward’ definition?

Posted on April 23, 2013 by

We are comfortable that there is a clear articulation of “blog” and “news”. Blogs are to do with the expression of the point of view of an individual or group of individuals. That is pretty straightforward, although, as with everything else, it will be subject to the courts’ deliberations at the appropriate time. Maria Miller, HoC debate, 22 April 2013.

The definitions of ‘blog’ and ‘news’ look set to be increasingly significant, in a very practical sense.

The government has updated amendments in the Crime and Courts Bill to “make clear that small blogs will not be classed as ‘relevant publishers’” who should sign up to the new regulator. Additionally, those who are not ‘relevant publishers’ but opt-in voluntarily, will receive the costs incentives of participating, including access to the regulator’s arbitration service.

DCMS has produced a flow-chart [see update at end], to help publications decide if they are expected to join the regulator or not – with the caveat that it’s not legal advice!

Relevant_publisher
There are two definitions, which might prove problematic in the future (although the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport, Maria Miller, is confident they are ‘straightforward’): ‘news-related’ and ‘blog’.

It appears that if you don’t wish to fall into the ‘relevant publisher’ category and your publication isn’t defined as a ‘blog’, publishing ‘news’ should not be the main focus of your business.

The Crime and Courts Bill will return to the House of Lords in the next stage of ‘Ping Pong’ later today (Main Chamber, 2.30pm).

Also see:

If any experts on micro-businesses and media organisational structures are reading, your thoughts on exemptions for individual titles and companies would be welcome.

Update: DCMS has updated its flowchart on Flickr to clarify the ‘publisher’ bit of ‘relevant publisher’:

Update 23/04/13, 10.41am
We have clarified the wording in the introduction following user feedback. Formerly read: ‘Relevant publishers are the newspapers and newspaper-like publications…’
Now reads: ‘Relevant publishers produce the newspapers and newspaper-like publications…’

Posted in blogging, courts, media law, media regulation | Tagged , , , | 6 Comments

Law and Media Round Up – 22 April 2013

Posted on April 23, 2013 by

There’s already quite a bit of new stuff to add to this, but here’s the media law round up for last week: at Inforrm’s Blog.

Posted in blogging, civil litigation, defamation, media law, media law mop-up, media law resources | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What’s libel got to do with it? Looking at the Royal Charter’s Arbitration process proposals

Posted on April 18, 2013 by

A crucial part of the draft Royal Charter is Clause 22, Schedule 3, on Arbitration services. Carl Gardner has previously written about the reasons that a lone blogger might want to be able to access these.

Draft Royal Charter, Clauses 22-23, Schedule 3 (my emphasis):

22. The Board should provide an arbitral process for civil legal claims against subscribers which:

a) complies with the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act”);
b) provides suitable powers for the arbitrator to ensure the process operates fairly and quickly, and on an inquisitorial basis (so far as possible);
c) contains transparent arrangements for claims to be struck out, for legitimate reasons (including on frivolous or vexatious grounds);
d) directs appropriate pre-publication matters to the courts;
e)    operates under the principle that arbitration should be free for complainants to use;
f) ensures that the parties should each bear their own costs, subject to a successful complainant’s costs being recoverable (having regard to section 601 of the Act and any applicable caps on recoverable costs);
and g) overall, is inexpensive for all parties.

23. The membership of a regulatory body should be open to all publishers on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, including making membership potentially available on different terms for different types of publisher.

Additionally, the Crime and Courts Bill discusses the effect on costs as a result of participation – or non-participation – in an arbitration scheme.

The discussion among small publishers has mainly been around the compulsory membership aspect of the new legislation proposals, and the penalties for not participating.

But there are also important questions around opting-in and joining the regulator, in order to access the free arbitration services: who should be able to and what type of media output would be included? At what stage of a complaint could a publisher join a regulator*?

And if a publisher can’t access these services, what are the other ADR options, and what would incentivise Claimants, as well as Defendants, to participate?

Further reading on ADR and arbitration:

*Also see this post on the LSE Media Policy Project blog, where commenter (and mediator) Simon Carne suggested: “there is no reason why it [membership] couldn’t be applied (or, if necessary, extended) to permit some classes of members to join when the need for arbitration arises“.

Posted in access to justice, blogging, civil litigation, defamation, media law, media regulation | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Law and Media Round Up – 15 April 2013

Posted on April 16, 2013 by

The Defamation Bill is now coming to the end of its passage through Parliament. On 16 April 2013 it will be back before the Commons on “ping pong”, the stage at which the Commons considers new amendments made by the House of Lords. As Inforrm noted here, in a post examining the detail of the Amendments, there were 16 Lords Amendments. Conservative MP and former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, has sought to remove Amendment 2.

The Libel Reform campaign has condemned the proposal to remove the clause which would require corporations to show financial damage before they can sue for libel. The Media Reform Coalition argues that the clauses are crucial: “Without a requirement to show damage, there is a danger that companies can use libel courts as an arm of their PR operations, simply suppressing what they don’t want in the public sphere”.

Full round up at Inforrm’s Blog…

Posted in defamation, media law, media law mop-up, media law resources | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Consultation for bloggers: ‘small-scale’ publishers and media regulation

Posted on April 5, 2013 by

The Leveson Inquiry’s focus was on the “press”, but a new system of media regulation implemented through a Royal Charter and the Crime and Courts Bill could have a much wider remit, depending on how a “small-scale” publisher is defined.

Many online writers are concerned by the potential negative consequences if they don’t join the new regulator. Others may wish to be part of a new regulator, in order to access its arbitration services (see Carl Gardner here, for example) but are unsure how it will work in practice. There are numerous practical issues to be dealt with, beyond the question of expected membership (see another post by Gardner here).

The Media Reform Coalition has launched an online survey: answers can be submitted anonymously but it asks you to identify the type of publication on whose behalf you’re responding. There is also a briefing document entitled “Small publishers, online journalism and the new system of press regulation” [PDF].

via Consultation for bloggers on the new Crime and Courts Bill | Media Reform Coalition.

Related reading:

Posted in blogging, media law, media regulation | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment