Just days before the Privy Council is due to sign off the Royal Charter on press regulation, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) together with the Media Reform Coalition are holding a one-day conference in Goldsmiths, University of London, to look at various aspects of how the law relates to the internet.

Donnacha DeLong, who was President of the NUJ during the Leveson Inquiry; Victoria McEvedy of the Open Rights Group, who campaigned to clarify the impact of the Crime and Courts Bill on websites; and Jake Rowbottom of the Oxford University Faculty of Law will discuss the Royal Charter and how it relates to the internet in the final session, chaired by Angela Philips, senior journalism lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, and member of the Media Reform Coalition.

The first session of the day will look at the issue of libel, what changed in the recent reforms of libel law and what issues remain controversial. David Osler, a journalist who was accused of libel in 2010 in a case that was thrown out of court, and Dave Morris, one of the defendants in the infamous McLibel case, will be joined by Mark Scodie, a solicitor with Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP). Judith Townend, a freelance journalist and researcher who runs the Meeja Law website (https://meejalaw.com/) will chair the session.

There will also be a session on the law surrounding abuse and threats online, looking at some of the recent revelations of vicious abuse and threats against many users of Twitter and other social media, women in particular. Jennifer Perry, an expert on digital stalking, and former Met Police officer Hamish Brown MBE will discuss the issue in a session chaired by Professor Yuri Obata, visiting International Researcher at Goldsmiths.

Tickets for the event are £30 for a standard ticket, £10 for unemployed people and OAPS and free for members of the NUJ and students and staff at Goldsmiths, University of London.

They can be booked online at https://nujinternet.eventbrite.co.uk/

Address:

New Academic Building, Goldsmiths University of London, London SE14 6NW (nearest tube/rail stations: New Cross and New Cross Gate).

Full timings:

• Opens (with refreshments): 10:00
• Libel (10.30-12.00) – chaired by Judith Townend (Meeja Law)
• Online abuse and threats (13:00-14:30) – chaired by Professor Yuri Obata (Visiting International Researcher at Goldsmiths)
• Regulation (15:00-16:30) – chaired by Angela Philips (Media Reform Coalition)
• Followed by a networking session with refreshments.
• Close: 19:00 

When: Saturday 26 October 2013, 10:00 – 19:00

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.

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…

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:

• LSE Media Policy Project: Leveson vs the Bloggers: How to Make Regulation Work for Everyone [March 2013]
• Damian Radcliffe: Hey! Regulator! Leave those Hyperlocals alone! [August 2012]
  
• An elephant in courtroom 73? Social media, regulation and the law [August 2012]