HEY! REGULATOR! LEAVE THOSE HYPERLOCALS ALONE

By Damian Radcliffe

Hyperlocal media – news or content pertaining to a town, village, single postcode or other small, geographically defined community – is not a new sector. But a fusion of technology, social media platforms and gaps in traditional media provision, have all combined to create the perfect conditions for  this sector to bloom.

As a result, hyperlocal media has grown substantially in the UK and other countries in recent years, with concerned citizens, new entrants and established media operators all taking advantage of this perfect storm to create and distribute locally relevant content. And despite very real challenges in making hyperlocal pay, we are only likely to see the sector grow, especially as smartphone technology continues to make it easier to create, distribute and consume locally relevant content.

Currently, the hyperlocal media sector is still relatively small. But as it grows, the issue of regulation is likely to rise up the policy agenda. Whether it is likely to be caught up in the slightly larger considerations of the Leveson Inquiry remains to be seen, but I believe there is a strong case for arguing against the statutory regulation of online hyperlocal media. In fact, I would go further and argue that not only should it be avoided, but that it would also be impossible to enforce.

As someone who spent just under five years working for the UK regulator, and who now works for a different regulatory body in a very different part of the world, that might seem a strange thing to say. So below I will explore five reasons why the sector should be unregulated, and why I think attempts at such regulation would ultimately prove unsuccessful.

Part One: the case against regulation

In my view there are five key areas which need to be explored when examining the case for regulation of this nascent sector. They are:  the open internet philosophy; the inapplicability of historic rules of regulation; practicalities of enforcement; the role of Citizen/Community Journalism; and innovation.

Taking each of these in turn:

1. The Open Internet Philosophy

This is a subject which has been written about far more extensively than we have space to explore here. However it is, a useful – if rudimentary – starting point. If you believe in the open internet, then the web should be a predominantly unregulated space. Clearly there are exceptions, such as the need to protect the exploitation of minors, but most of these concerns are not applicable to hyperlocal websites.

Provided that the law of the land is not being broken, then hyperlocal websites should generally be left alone, free to self-manage, without recourse to a wider regulatory power.

2. The historic rules of regulation do not apply

In a broadcast world, regulation was used to create a framework for licensees. In return for abiding by the rules, which included signing up to a code of conduct and agreeing terms of trade (e.g. what type of service you are, or specific obligations such as the amount of local news you produce), then license holders got access to a precious commodity: spectrum, and with it the right to broadcast direct to people in their homes.

This two-way contract has been a key tool in making broadcast regulation work, but it is not a framework which logically transfers to the online space. Online space is virtually limitless, the challenges faced by hyperlocal practitioners – such as discoverability, scale and financial sustainability – are only recent considerations for traditional media players in a multi-channel, online, world.

Without the obvious means for a similar sort of two-way contract between the regulator and the service provider, we have to reconsider how and why we might regulation in the Internet age.

3. The (im)practicalities of enforcement

Anyone can set up a hyperlocal website or channel using tools like Facebook, WordPress or Twitter. These tools are often free, and fairly easy to use, with the result that you can set up your website in minutes. And it also means that if your website gets into trouble, you can dismantle and remove traces of it pretty quickly too. This means that not only is it impossible to comprehensively capture what hyperlocal sites exist, it will be equally impossible to monitor them effectively.

In contrast launching a newspaper, TV or radio station has often required specific licenses, equipment and training, as well as clear monitoring requirements. Broadcasters, for example, have a legal requirement to keep a record of what they have transmitted, whilst newspaper owners see their physical product in the public’s hands.

This makes it rather hard to hide any potential crimes and misdemeanors.

4. Concerned Citizens and Community Journalism

Whilst commercial hyperlocal outlets and networks do exist, the majority of hyperlocal content in the UK is produced by citizens, often for free, or certainly very small sums of money.

This in itself is no bad thing, indeed I have previously suggested that the best sites stem from local need, by people steeped in their communities. In many cases, but not always, this manifests itself in the form of active citizens investigating and reporting on what matters to them.

Looking at the US hyperlocal scene, the Federal Communications Commission in their extensive report  “The Information Needs of Communities: The changing media landscape in a broadband age” noted:

“Even in the fattest-and-happiest days of traditional media, they could not regularly provide news on such a granular level. Professional media have been joined by a wide range of local blogs, email lists, websites and the proliferation of local groups on national websites like Facebook or Yahoo!

For the most part, hyperlocally oriented websites and blogs do not operate as profitable businesses, but they do not need to. This is journalism as voluntarism—a thousand points of news.”   (Page 16)

This sentiment is equally applicable to the UK and any other county with a growing hyperlocal scene.

The voluntarism described by the FCC should be encouraged and nurtured, not stifled. Attempts at regulation of this sector are only likely to reduce transparency and accountability, not increase it, by discouraging citizen related activity.

Few community journalists would be able to afford any inevitable regulatory fees, and the very presence of such fees would undoubtedly deter some citizens setting up their own hyperlocal sites.

It is also likely that few concerned citizens would not even know that their Facebook Group, or blog fell under any regulatory regime. Used to using open, social, internet platforms without restriction to comment on issues of interest to them, why would their local website be regulated when posts on local food or their holidays are not?

Determining what citizen content fell in – or out – of any regulatory regime would be a very difficult call.

5. Innovation

Lastly, there is the issue of innovation. Regulators always like to talk a lot about their role in encouraging innovation, creativity and new business models. Perhaps the extent of this is overplayed, but regulators can certainly play a role in ensuring that barriers to innovation are kept to a minimum. With the online hyperlocal sector still in its infancy there is a very real risk that innovation would be stymied by unnecessary regulation.

 Part Two: the case for regulation

When I wrote the original blog article which formed the basis of this contribution,  I also spent considerable time considering the reasons for regulation. Then, as now, I struggled somewhat – both in terms of the mechanisms for enforcement, as well as the potential benefits.

For the former, I considered the option of income thresholds – that sites above a certain income would need to be regulated – and in turn whether sites might opt in to be regulated by the PCC or some other body. Finally, I also wondered if there was merit in the industry coming together and devising its own system of self-regulation.

The latter provoked some discussion, and I am grateful in particular to William Perrin, Philip John, Judith Townend and Mike Rawlins for their thoughts and contributions.

Of these, I think the three strongest arguments for regulation are around protection, credibility and parity for hyperlocal publishers.

All of these are desirable outcomes, but I am yet to be convinced that they way to achieve them is through regulation or indeed self-regulation. Rather, they require attitudinal changes and shifts more than anything else from big media, the NUJ and in some cases media consumers.

Again, taking each of these areas in turn:

1.            Legal standing and support

Potentially the biggest benefit of regulation for the sector is that it may make it easier to unlock union and legal support. At present most hyperlocal writers are unrecognised by the NUJ and – in contrast to their traditional media peers – they do not enjoy the backing of a large legal department.

Legal support is an area the hyperlocal sector would benefit from. The day will come when a hyperlocal practitioner loses their home due to a legal dispute stemming from content on their site.  Sadly, it may take such an incident for this issue to be given the consideration it deserves.

We need to find a means to redress this, as the level of legal support for the citizen journalist/reporter is often minimal, if indeed there is any at all.

To counteract this, in the US, J-Lab and the Knight Foundation ran a Legal Risk Blog for American citizen journalists, bloggers and social network users. Different media laws mean that its usefulness as a tool for UK practitioners is limited, although the site is not without value.

One way this could work in the UK would be to encourage big media groups – perhaps through a regulatory lever – to provide a certain amount of pro-bono legal support to hyperlocal outlets.

Alternatively they may have to pay a small levy to a central legal fund, which could either ensure 24/7 legal support for hyperlocal practitioners, or support a financial pool to draw on when the litigation starts. Such an idea is not without risk of abuse, but if we are to encourage better relationships between community media outlets players and traditional media, providing meaningful support between the sectors in this way would be one way of doing it.

2.            Credibility

Rightly or wrongly, there can be misconceptions amongst consumers and traditional media alike about the content and accuracy of hyperlocal content. Being part of a regulatory regime may help to change that, but I am skeptical. Many regulated bodies – across media, finance and other industries – are severely lacking in credibility at present. As are their regulators.

Moreover, Ofcom research shows that many media consumers are already confused and ill-informed about regulation and funding. So being part of a regulatory regime will not necessarily change public perceptions. Or indeed those held by old media.

More effective measures could simply be cosmetic. Lichfield Blog for example renamed itself Lichfield Live, because it became “hard to escape the fact that having ‘blog’ in our name was causing problems with how we were perceived”.

Some of the Lichfield team have also posited the idea of self-regulation, with hyperlocal players signing up to an agreed “Code of Conduct”, in part to boost credibility.  I can see the merit of such a code, and such an approach could be especially useful for new sites in giving them best practice and a set of standards to aspire to, but I am not sure that it will make much of a difference in the credibility stakes.

That does not mean however that hyperlocals should not do it, and there would be a merit to having agreed and shared text on issues such as fairness and complaint handling, but the benefits of this approach are, in my view, of more benefit for practitioners, than big media partners and audiences.

Instead, I would argue that activities such as public visibility – reporting from, or organizing local events – or making your content available offline as well as online, may be much more effective at boosting credibility and changing perceptions than being part of any new regulatory body.

3. Creating a level playing field

The underlying consideration here is how to establish a more level playing field, particularly in terms of legal protection and credibility.  For some commentators, the only way to do this is by bringing hyperlocal media into any post-Leveson regulatory regime.

That may be so, but I think this argument is fallacious and that these objectives can be achieved through other non-regulatory means. Examples of credible, respected hyperlocal websites abound (see: http://kingscrossenvironment.com/ , http://parwich.org/ , http://pitsnpots.co.uk/ , http://www.london-se1.co.uk  and http://ventnorblog.com/  as just some examples). As, increasingly, do examples of creative partnerships between this sector and traditional media.

Regulation also risks having accidental consequences, from stifling innovation and driving small scale hyperlocal practitioners out of business, through to creating a two tier hyperlocal sector, with some outlets being regulated (perhaps due to their size, scale and or platform) whilst others are not (e.g. those on Facebook).

Far from creating a level playing field therefore, such a scenario risks widening gaps, not reducing them.

Concluding Thoughts

I argued earlier that a number of factors – the open internet philosophy; the inapplicability of historic rules of regulation; practicalities of enforcement; the role of Citizen/Community Journalism; and innovation – were all good reasons, both individually and collectively, against statutory regulation.

Similarly, I remain unconvinced at the viability of self-regulation, or that it is the means to deliver outcomes such as enhanced protection or credibility.

In my experience most hyperlocal outlets take questions of balance and accuracy very seriously and where they have an editorial agenda it is usually pretty clear.

Just because you are unregulated, does not mean that your standards are any lower.  Nor will being regulated suddenly mean that the public will view you content differently, that relationships with traditional media will transform overnight, or that late night telephone calls from aggrieved Press Officers will cease.

Instead, we need to recognize that hyperlocal publishers are an increasingly important part of our media ecosystem. They can, and do, on occasion provide great content for other media outlets – acting as a local wire service. Hyperlocal outlets can also be a great way for traditional media to find new voices and talent, whilst for audiences they can help plug gaps in content provision – or provide a new level of ultralocal reporting.

Nurturing and supporting the industry should be the aim of policy makers.  And it does not need regulation to make this happen.  Key challenges such as finding ways to develop partnerships, or unlocking legal training and support for hyperlocal publishers, can all happen without the need for regulatory intervention or frameworks.

Let’s see if we can make it happen.

Democracy Society / Damian Radcliffe. An extract from Media Regulation & Democracy [PDF], Demsoc 4 (July 2012), pp. 33-43. This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Licence.

The Democratic Society is a non-partisan membership organisation supporting participation, democracy and new models of networked governance.

Damian Radcliffe is the author of Here and Now – UK hyperlocal media today, the UK’s first review of this emerging sector, and an Honorary Research Fellow of the School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University. Twitter: @mrdamian76.

“Thinking of putting forward a session at #TAL12 on hyperlocals and crime. Reporting it, legal stuff and why you should do it. Of interest?” @ed_walker86

The small group of hyperlocal publishers discussed their individual approaches to crime reporting, and it raised – in my view – pertinent questions about best practice and ethics in the digital era, as well as access to police and courts information.

Delegates had already been briefed on contempt of court by David Banks in a morning session, so this session focused on the how and why, rather than the legal parameters [for a quick and cheap guide to reporting criminal courts, you could look at Sarah Chapman’s e-book; for a more in-depth advice see McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists].

Ed suggested some of the reasons we might report courts on local news sites, including reader interest and community benefit (my paraphrasing – he might like to elaborate in comments below).

In our discussion, hyperlocal publishers described how they reported crime and some of the issues that had cropped up. One publisher said that since they couldn’t attend court (an issue of blogger manpower), they waited for a result before reporting on a case. A couple of people described occasions when they were asked to remove information relating to specific cases, by individuals named in a published crime report.

A few specific incidents particularly interested me, which I’ll follow up and possibly report in more detail in due course – or please add comments below, if you’ve got relevant examples to share.

In view of the concerns being raised, I mentioned our ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era‘ initiative at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London. In a forthcoming publication, a range of journalists, lawyers and academics discuss the path ahead for the digitisation of courts and legal information.

It will include founder of Talk About Local William Perrin’s ‘Courts Transparency Charter‘, which has sparked some debate around the issues of privacy, rehabilitation of offenders and data protection.

Following the publication of the working papers, the CLJJ is planning to discuss some of the proposals in more detail, to feed into recommendations for the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary and other relevant bodies.

We’d love to hear from hyperlocal publishers. The session on Saturday, at least, indicated that there might be some divergence from a typical journalistic approach (due to resources and mission of the sites) and it seems sensible to include these views in any discussion going forward.

Please contact me via:

• jt.townend [at] gmail [dot] com (for Meeja Law related inquiries)
• judith.townend.1 [at] city.ac.uk (for open justice project inquiries)
• More information about the open justice initiative at bit.ly/openjustice

Or leave a comment below! Thanks to the organisers, Talk About Local and the online community noticeboard n0tice, for an excellent and thought-provoking day.

There was a parallel session on the ‘Hyperlocal Alliance‘ which I missed, but understand that it picked up on the theme of hyperlocal regulation, which I covered in my last post and Damian Radcliffe covered here on the Democratic Society blog.

My current research project focuses on national newspapers and media law/regulation and I’m keen to extend my view to digital and local news providers.

I’m hoping other TAL12 attendees will be interested in talking about media law and regulation and two key questions:

• Should we regulate the hyperlocal space? If so, how?

• Hyperlocal publishers are already subject to the law of the (global and national) land. How can they best be supported?

It’s something I initially looked at in 2010, the results of which can be found here.
Damian Radcliffe (@mrdamian76) – who until recently worked at Ofcom but is now based in Doha – has addressed the issue of hyperlocal regulation in a post for the Democratic Society blog.

In his view, “where possible, regulation of online hyperlocal media should be avoided”. He struggled to come up with reasons in favour of regulation and instead sets out five arguments for leaving well alone, which deal with: the open internet philosophy; the inapplicability of historic rules of regulation; practicalities; Citizen Smith; innovation. Read them in full here.

Damian’s argument against regulation is persuasive in terms of enforced regulation, but I would welcome more discussion around small-scale (informal?) self-regulation and the benefits that might bring. With the caveat that these are rough, working thoughts up for discussion, here are a couple of comments:

Protection for hyperlocals. He mentions the broadcasting type “two-way contract”. This explains the logic of broadcasting regulation: that broadcasters give something (eg. standards/public service content) in return for spectrum and broadcasting rights. While I accept that such a deal isn’t really applicable to online publishers (we have no need to negotiate hosting space which can be bought outside the UK), but could we think about some other kind of two-way contract? ie. hyperlocals could have recourse to some sort of support or resources (ie. a dispute resolution service, similar to the PCC’s complaints mediation arm) if they abide by certain standards and ‘public interest’ goals? This would not necessarily have to be a mandatory – and certainly not statutory – obligation but could be developed by an independent, non-profit organisation, for example. (Of course, the big question is how it would be funded). I’m not convinced by media ‘accreditation’ schemes as incentives, however.

Codes of conduct. Journal Local founder Philip John raises this issue in the comments underneath Damian’s piece and suggests that publishers could “choose to adopt [a code] specifically for adding credibility”. It’s also something the Media Standards Trust has explored with its Transparency initiative and the Value Added News / hNews  mechanism. They have developed a system of rel-principles, which MST’s Martin Moore describes as “a line of code that embeds a link within each article to the news principles to which it adheres” (these are particular to the news organisation). In response to Philip’s comment, Damian said he supports the idea of self-imposed codes, but he is dubious of the benefit for”external stakeholders”. This is a question worth exploring further. Sure, we don’t want hyperlocals to get bogged down in bureaucracy but perhaps some of form of code that would help strengthen a site’s journalism and communication with users would be a commendable exercise – especially if, as I suggest above, it could give them access to a pool of resources.

Damian previously asked me about my thoughts on hyperlocal media law for his recent report for NESTA on ‘Here and Now – UK hyperlocal media today’ [PDF]. This is from the section on ‘understanding the law’, including my quote in the middle:

“Whatever your platform, another core skill – and one which may not necessarily be obvious – is an understanding of media law. Hyperlocal sites blur the boundaries between journalism and activism, and this can be particularly difficult in terms of media law. For sites written by concerned individuals and community activists, there is a risk of undertaking news reporting which readers – and in particular, public bodies – may take issue with.

‘Big professional news organisations can afford in-house legal advice, which simply isn’t feasible for smaller operations, such as independent local news sites. In 2010 I conducted a small online survey among 71 bloggers and small online publishers, many of whom were in the ‘hyperlocal’ space. The results indicated mixed feelings about resources, with 27 per cent respondents encountering legal trouble in last two years. Of these, 19 online writers who were contacted over a legal matter in the last two years, only seven sought legal advice, which was paid for in four instances. The remaining 12 dealt with it alone…. … without legal help available, bloggers may be less inclined to pursue certain kinds of stories or avenues of investigation.’ Judith Townend, Founder, Meeja Law

“As we can see, the level of legal support for the citizen journalist/reporter is often minimal, if indeed there is any at all. In the US, J-Lab and the Knight Foundation ran a Legal Risk Blog for American citizen journalists, bloggers and social network users, but its usefulness as a tool for UK practitioners is limited. As the sector grows it may be only matter of time before we see the emergence of similar services in the UK.” (Radcliffe 2012. p.23)

I think it would be brilliant to see the “emergence of similar services in the UK”, in the mould of something like the Berkman Center’s Digital Media Law Project in the US. Which leads us to the question of who/how/what …

As I say, these are rough thoughts-in-progress and I hope other people will be interested in joining this discussion on Saturday. I’d love to hear what people actually doing hyperlocal news think.

I’ve long been interested in the comprehension of media law by normal, non-media law trained people, who are potentially – as I’ve pointed out before – all publishers now. In fact, it’s one of the things that led me to take up legal research: my own fascination with legal adjustment to digital culture.

When I conducted a short research project in 2010 looking at bloggers’ experiences of media law, I realised there was a hole in the empirical research around the public’s knowledge of media law and regulation.

So I was interested to see YouGov had conducted a survey for Nominet’s ‘KnowtheNet’ project asking respondents what online behaviour they considered broke the law. Nominet’s release about the survey and its methodology can be found here. A version of the test – part of the survey – is available at www.knowthenet.org.uk/accidentaloutlaw.

Its results have been reported by Huffington Post, the Telegraph, ZDNet, Forbes and others.  I would be very interested to hear lawyers’ views on the methodology and legal structure of the questionnaire. It struck me (a non-lawyer) that the questions in the online version simplified the situation somewhat, although the answers did elaborate on some of the complexities (eg. every “super injunction” is different*). I asked people what they thought via Twitter.

Blogging barrister @eatplaylaw said: “I got the feeling it mixed up the law with things the companies have in their Ts & Cs”. Emily Goodhand (@copyrightgirl), said: “Overall it’s good, as an intro to privacy / defamation – with the copyright questions though, there are defences which would allow  you to do some of the things listed in the question, although someone with no knowledge of copyright law wouldn’t know that”.

My own feeling is that the online questionnaire is over simplified, but I’m glad to see attention on this astonishingly unexplored research area …

Please share your own observations in the comments below. In other media law news, you can find this week’s round up of law and regulation developments over at Inforrm.

*The survey’s explanation of a “super injunction” left me a bit dissatisfied. As Meeja Law’s Super Injunction page shows, definitions have varied between publications. A survey conducted by ComRes on behalf of the Independent earlier in the year also failed to clarify what it meant by “super injunction”.

Image: VictoriaPeckham on Flickr.

—–

In other news, Paul Bradshaw’s Help Me Investigate has launched its new ‘Networks’ project. Investigations are not hosted in one central place, but on different topic sites, with a spreadsheet directing you to investigations elsewhere.

The project is launching with a focus on 3 areas: Education, Health and Welfare. We’ll be providing tips from practising journalists, updates on ongoing investigations, and useful documents and data.

More here.

While independent news sites fall outside the Ofcom regulatory framework, he explained why local news consumption patterns matter to the body. There also some notes from April/May 2011 on his personal website here.

Damian spoke to participants of the Annenberg-Oxford summer institute last week. His presentation clearly identified the hyperlocal challenges ahead, as well as the opportunities. It left me thinking about hyperlocal regulatory and legal issues – something I’m keen to keep discussing on this blog (please do get in touch if there’s a specific topic or story you’d like covered: jt.townend@gmail.com).

As the An-Ox contingent arrived at Ofcom’s office in South London, we witnessed Simon Hughes MP getting ready to present a letter to Ofcom chief executive Ed Richards – asking the regulator to investigate whether News Corp is “fit and proper” to take over BSkyB in light of the most recent phone hacking allegations involving News of the World. Appropriately, the hyperlocal news site SE1 was quick off the mark reporting that event.

Hughes’ letter can be read at this link.

The move raises two questions. Firstly, do other councils also allow this and what other transparency initiatives are in place? Guardian Local editor Sarah Hartley comments on Greenslade’s post:

Cardiff Council also doing live webcasts (as I’m sure others do as well) but I think what’s interesting about this move, is that the council isn’t doing the filming or streaming – the public will be able to.

Handing over the control like this seems a mature move and one which would assist other local websites, bloggers and mainstream media alike if adopted across the board.
Be interesting to see the impact of this in a few months time.

Secondly, what are the legal issues? Paul Brashaw has set up a page on the Help Me Investigate site [request an invite here, if you’re not a member] to look at just this.

He asks how data protection laws apply (or not) and how the Local Government Act 1972 applies.

Two recent cases are useful as context here:

1) Green councillor Jason Kitcat successfully appealed a local authority decision to suspend him from Brighton & Hove City Council, after he uploaded clips of council meetings onto YouTube (taken from the council’s own public livestream). Kitcat’s tribunal notes can be found here. A report in local paper, the Argus, can be found here.

2) Chris Taggart, of OpenlyLocal and the Count Culture blog, and his  attempt to video a Windsor & Maidenhead council meeting. He argues:

Interestingly, when asked why videoing was not allowed, they claimed ‘Data Protection’, the catch-all excuse for any public body that doesn’t want to publish, or open up, something. Of course, this is nonsense in the context of a public meeting,  and where all those being filmed were public figures who were carrying out a civic responsibility.

If you can help with these questions please leave comments below, or join the HMI group!

In the coming months, I’d like to build up the conversation in this area and think about how we might approach some of these issues. If you’d like to be part of this informal online ‘working group’ please consider joining the Help Me Investigate challenge at this link (request membership here), or discussing via the OJB Facebook group.

Paul Bradshaw created this LinkedIn group as “a place for people to more openly discuss how to take this forward”.

My post for the OJB provoked quite a lively debate. Jim Hawkins (@jiminthemorning on Twitter), a radio presenter for BBC Shropshire, argued that extended discussion was unnecessary. Others, such as Paul Bradshaw and Philip John, disagreed.

Hawkins said, for example:

If you know the law, you know whether or not you’re in the clear. Sure, not defaming someone doesn’t protect you from being accused of defamation; but being confident that you’ve not defamed someone means you don’t have to run up a legal bill. I’ve been telling myself not to defame people – or to allow people to be defamed, a daily risk on live speech radio – every day for thirty years, and that’s worked just fine so far.

(…)

Judith’s idea of a support network for people who need advice is a good one; no-one could dispute that. But people who are prepared to publish should be prepared to know the law too.

I agree with his last point, but think that there needs to be wider communication of the issues. My research has not extended to social network users, but I’d be fascinated to know how many understand libel and contempt of court law. I disagree, however, that the grey areas are simple to navigate, or that defamation law poses so few problems.

• Read the full discussion here

Update: David Banks, co-author of McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists added this on the OJB post:

I’m all for greater legal knowledge, well I would be wouldn’t I?

But sad to say that does not forestall legal action. If the law were as clear cut as some here are suggesting, then an awful lot of libel lawyers would be out of business.

Many publishers have learnt to their cost that the truth can be expensive if you cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the High Court. Libel claimants know this and the deck is so stacked in their favour, and the danger of loss so expensive, that the mere threat of an action prevents publication. That’s the chilling effect.

The questionnaire, which 71 respondents completed, asked UK-based online writers, who publish independently or for sites with fewer than ten employees, to recount their interactions with UK law. The majority of the respondents write about specific topical issues or cover local (or hyperlocal) news.

Of the 19 online writers who were contacted over a legal matter in the last two years (27 per cent), only seven sought legal advice, which was paid for in four instances. The remaining 12 dealt with it alone.

However, only two of the cases reached court. For six of the publishers, the case was dropped at an earlier stage. Two published corrections or clarifications. Nine involved payment and/or removal of material, although in two cases this was only partial removal of material.

Of writers who cited legal trouble, 68% had been involved in defamation disputes; 37% copyright; 16% privacy; and 11% data protection. [NB: Some of these respondents had been involved in more than one type of action, so the total exceeds 100%]

Three of the 19 bloggers had been writing online for between one and two years; the other 16 had over three years experience – of these, three had been writing online for over ten years.

Seven of the cases involved local news publishers; nine involved bloggers who cover specific topics and three were in other areas: international news; a consumer blog about a particular company; and ‘off-beat news’.

On the whole, the 71 respondents had avoided initiating their own legal disputes: only eight had made their own legal complaints to other publishers; seven concerned copyright matters; the other concerned a spamming issue.

DO WE NEED MORE LEGAL RESOURCES?

The audience was completely divided: 46% said they did not think there was enough legal information and advice at hand; 54% said there was an adequate amount.

But the overall picture contrasted with answers from those who had encountered legal trouble in the last two years: only 32% of those 19 respondents felt they were able to access adequate legal information, 68% did not.

Click through the charts below to see the difference of opinion between those who had encountered trouble in the last two years, and those who hadn’t.