With everything that is going on, there’s almost enough material for a daily round up, but for a summary of the week that was see this Law and Media Round Up – 25 March 2013 on Inforrm’s Blog.
There will be a two week break over Easter, after which normal service will resume. If you have any additions or listings please do drop me a line.
The University of Portsmouth is seeking applicants for a funded PhD on corporations and defamation – looks like a fascinating project!
The full project title is: “The Defamation of Companies: Free Speech, Public Protection and the Economic Consequences of False Statements upon the Value and Reputation of Companies”. Application details available here (deadline: 19 April 2013)
Applications are invited to a three-year PhD Studentship in Portsmouth Business School, starting 1 October 2013.
Defamation compensates injury to reputation through the spreading of false statements. The English common law has recognized that companies have a reputation to protect, and therefore standing to bring defamation claims. A false statement about a company such as claims about the safety of its product, its treatment of workers, or sourcing of goods, can have adverse impacts upon its share price, income and corporate image. Yet theorists have claimed that unlike individuals whose reputation is damaged, and who may seek defamation to protect their honour and dignity, corporate reputation is a property interest linked to such business concepts as ‘goodwill’ and company value.
Calculating such damages is likely to result in more substantial award of damages than that associated with individuals, and this poses a major problem for groups and individuals who wish to hold companies to account for poor ‘corporate practices’ who may be deterred by companies using defamation SLAPP suits to stop criticism. Such suits undermine the freedom of speech of campaigners and has led to the adoption of anti-SLAPP suits in many US states, whilst in Australia the right of corporations to sue has been removed completely.
Concerns over anti-SLAPP suits and the deterrent effect of large damages awards in cases of corporate libel have been raised in regards to the recent debate on defamation reform in England. The current version Defamation Bill addresses this issue only through the new general requirement that requires all defamation claimants to prove the ‘publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm.’
The aim of this research is to evaluate whether corporations should have the right to sue, and if they are to do so how should damages, or “serious harm”, be calculated, and can this be done in a manner which does not deter civic society organisations and individuals from criticising or monitoring corporate activities.
The research is expected to adopt a number of methodologies to address these questions:
• Examination of case-law and commentary to understand why companies were permitted to sue for defamation in the first place and how this law has developed.
• Examine the underlying theories of defamation/reputation (such as Howarth 2011).
• Use empirical data collection relying upon a series of event studies of alleged libels of companies (such as Vick and Campbell 2001)) to assess the long-term economic and reputational interests upon companies, comparing these with event studies of corporations whose corporate misconduct have been proven.
• Undertake a comparative study with countries which have amended their libel laws to introduce SLAPP suits and prohibit corporations from suing to see if this has any impact upon the reporting of corporate malpractice.
• Review the adequacy of alternative mechanisms of protecting corporate reputation including other legal actions like malicious falsehood and methods employed by reputation management companies.
Here is yesterday’s Law and Media Round Up (18 March 2013), but things have moved on since then, of course, with the publication of the cross-party agreed Draft Royal Charter on Self-Regulation of the Press and amendments made to the Crime and Courts Bill [PDF]. Major newspapers are yet to decide if they will join.
This announcement comes via the excellent Scraperwiki (a start-up I worked with on a series of events in 2010/11). They have teamed up with WAN-IFRA to put on a hack day at Bloomberg on 13 April 2013.
In April, global news media execs are gathering in London, to discuss the continuing emergence of digital media at WAN-IFRA’s Digital Media Europe 2013 (#DME13). To help launch and influence the digital-first agenda, ScraperWiki is teaming up with Wan IFRA to put together a hack day on Saturday 13th April.
We are looking for developers, information architects, journalists and data scientists, with have an open agenda covering three key themes:
We’ll start at 9 at Bloomberg’s offices at 39-45 Finsbury Square, EC2A 1HD. The plan is to hack all day, finishing code by 5 for prizes, beer and pizza from 6 onwards.
ScraperWiki will be looking into related datasets to have scraped, cleaned and shiny in advance (if you have any ideas for useful ‘sets, drop us a line), so there will be plenty of info available if you need raw data (and an API).
For more information, you can read more on ScraperWiki’s blog.
Yesterday’s round up, with listings for the week ahead can be found on Inforrm’s Blog.
The BBC College of Journalism has published a selection of views on the CPS Public consultation on its Interim Guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent via social media, which closes on 13 March 2013. My contribution is below and the others, including John Cooper QC, Jon Harman, learning design and media director at London’s University of Law, Sue Llewellyn, media trainer, and David Banks, journalist and media law consultant, can be found here.
We’re in a contradictory and disconcerting place at the moment. Three years ago we saw the abolition of criminal libel and blasphemy and the word ‘insulting’ is to be removed from the Public Order Act.
However, there has been increasing use of criminal law in relation to social media – sometimes in disproportionate ways, as in the ‘Twitter joke’ trial. Concerns have also been raised about the consistency and severity of sentencing, especially in relation to sick jokes and political – albeit distasteful – comment.
It appears, as Professor Ian Cram has argued, that much energy is spent on ‘shoehorning new practices and behaviour into existing legal categories’. It is encouraging that the CPS now acknowledges these tensions with its sensible, if vague, interim guidelines.
A more nuanced consideration of social media use and the public interest is certainly needed. But there is another area to emphasise too: education. As the CPS rightly identifies, children ‘may not appreciate the potential harm and seriousness of their communications and a prosecution is rarely likely to be in the public interest’.
That lack of appreciation may apply to many adults too. Better public legal education around media is needed to prevent genuinely harmful communication acting against the public interest, especially in relation to breaches of reporting restrictions, threats of violence and harassment.
via BBC – Blogs – College of Journalism – Social media and the law: a case to regulate or educate?.
My name is among the signatories of this open letter written in protest at the measures proposed in the Justice and Security Bill, which has reached its report stage and third reading in the House of Commons. For more background on this bill see the University of Reading’s Law, Terrorism and the Right to Know project; and the UK Human Rights Blog.
A charter for cover ups
We are deeply concerned by the Justice and Security Bill.
It was drafted in response to legal cases involving allegations of UK complicity in secret rendition, torture and inhumane treatment.
The Bill is a charter for cover ups.
Neither the public, nor the victims, nor their lawyers nor the media will have a right to know.
Court records could be kept secret forever. Secret courts could be extended to undercover police officers, deaths of suspects in custody and deaths in the military.
The measures in the Bill are an attack on open and accessible justice, they threaten the right to a fair trial and the rule of law.
Journalism at its best uncovers the truth and the Bill intends to hide the evidence.
We are asking MPs to make their vote count and oppose the secret courts proposals in the Justice and Security Bill next week.
This week’s round up, at Inforrm’s Blog. Contempt, defamation, court documents, data protection and more…
My paper on public access to the Leveson Inquiry has been published in the new issue of Ethical Space, The International Journal of Communication Ethics.
Abstract: The Leveson Inquiry has broken new ground for court and political reporting: for the first time a public inquiry held under the Inquiries Act 2005 has been played out live on the internet. Online media provided a chance for ordinary members of the public, non-profit groups and small media organisations to expand and question mainstream media narratives, as they watched, blogged and tweeted proceedings. This paper considers public access to the inquiry, arguing that digital communication has allowed for a newly liberated form of debate and enhanced the public’s entitlement to report what they hear in court, in accordance with a longstanding legal tradition of open justice. Additionally, it has 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.
Citation: Townend, J (2013) ‘Leveson online: A publicly reported inquiry’, Ethical Space, Vol. 10, No. 1.
A recently discovered poem by Rudyard Kipling, written in 1899, fits the current Leveson/press regulation theme quite neatly – it voices the poet’s frustrations with media questions, opening “Why don’t you write a play – / Why don’t you cut your hair?“. It’s called ‘The Press’; the final two verses echo 21st century concerns about privacy intrusion and financial transactions around private lives:
Do you hope to enter
Fame’s immortal dome?
Do you put the washing out
Or have it done at home?
Have you any morals?
Does your genius burn?
Was you wife a what’s its name?
How much did she earn?Had your friend a secret
Sorrow, shame or vice –
Have you promised not to tell
What’s your lowest price?
All the housemaid fancied
All the butler guessed
Tell it to the public press
And we will do the rest.
The full poem can be read on Guardian.co.uk…
(From The Cambridge Edition of the Poems of Rudyard Kipling)
Media law & ethics for online publishers, collected and written by Judith Townend (@jtownend)
Disclaimer: This site contains general information only. This site does not contain legal advice. This site is not responsible for the content of external sites. Enquiries should be made to: jt.townend [at] gmail.com.
