Since we missed last week’s round up, here’s a bumper crop with stories from the previous fortnight. Super injunctions are still on everyone’s lips, following a claim in Parliament that a serving MP may have sought one too; whether it’s the sort that prohibits the mention of the order, or an anonymity privacy injunction, we don’t know. Sports presenter Gabby Logan has reportedly hit back at online rumours and denied that she has taken out a super injunction. Metro reports:
The presenter, who has been married for almost a decade and is the mother of five-year-old twins, said: ‘I’m a happily married and faithful wife.
‘It’s devastating and hurtful that malicious lies can be circulated on the internet without control when people who genuinely have something to hide can be protected by court rulings.’
The mainstream media is making a lot of noise about these orders, but more thorough, informed scrutiny is needed. Radio 4 Media Show addressed the issue last Wednesday and you can listen to the programme here. Hugh Tomlinson QC, who has acted in several of the recent privacy cases, said that the courts are no longer issuing the sorts of injunctions in which reporting its very existence is prohibited.
“It’s [super injunctions] not running out of control. The judges take a lot of care over these things and one thing that they have done in recent times … is to have public judgments: even when cases are heard in private, in almost all of them they are now giving a little judgment explaining what they’ve done and why.”
He also contended that material in the public interest was being suppressed:
“There do not exist cases where politicians or powerful corporations suppress wrongdoing by means of privacy injunctions – it just doesn’t happen.”
The Guardian director of legal editorial services, Gill Phillips disagreed with some of Tomlinson’s comments, and said that she thought many recent injunctions fell “on the non-private side of the line”:
“If you look at what Article 8 of the convention says, it talks about respect for privacy and family life. It seems to me that these people are showing no respect whatsoever for their own.”
Anyway, on with the rest of the UK’s media law news:
- Inforrm>>News “This house believes English libel laws are fit for purpose” – a Queen Mary/City University Seminar
- Index on Censorship>> Lord Lester at the Joint Committee on the Defamation Bill
- Robert Sharp>> Libel Reform is 190 Years Overdue
- BBC 1’s See You In Court featuring libel defendants Simon Singh and Tristan Rogers
- BCA’s statement following See You In Court
- The Guardian>> Libel law makes web hosts the Achilles heel of online journalism
- BBC>> This week in Parliament
Ian Tomlinson inquest
- Press Gazette>>IPCC: Tomlinson cop misconduct hearing to be public
- Index on Censorship>> Death on film
- Index on Censorship>> Illegal tactics
- Paul Lewis>> Met told us to ‘lay off’ Tomlinson story
- Chris Greer and Eugene McLaughlin>> The Ian Tomlinson inquest was justice seen to be done
Freedom of expression
- Index on Censorship>> Shooting the messenger
- Press Gazette>>MPs urge end to ‘routine’ government leaks to press
- Index on Censorship>> Internet arms race pits censorship tactics against new-media tools
- Index on Censorship>> Freedom House: Press freedom worldwide at lowest point in a decade
And more on privacy / super injunctions…
- Media Guardian>>Barrister’s privacy law lesson reaches the right conclusion
- Hugh Tomlinson QC >> How to create a privacy law
- Press Gazette>> Commons claim over MP super-injunction
- Inforrm>>Privacy Injunctions: “Don’t bother if you’re not a rich male celebrity?” – Sara Mansoori
- Index on Censorship>> Should we scrap superinjunctions?
- Inforrm>>Privacy – the way ahead? Part 1 – Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Inforrm>>Privacy – the way ahead? Part 2 – Background to the New Law – Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Inforrm>>News: Mosley v United Kingdom, judgment to be given on 10 May
- Media Guardian>>Fred Goodwin’s superinjunction text to be studied by MPs
- MST>> Should there be legal protection for privacy in the internet era?
- HTFP>> Children to the fore as judges gag the world
- Inforrm>>Privacy law: the super-injunction is dead
- Media Guardian>>Most superinjunctions serve one purpose: to protect sexual indiscretions
- Charlie Beckett>>Andrew Marr: should he do any more political interviews?
- FleetStreetBlues>> The ‘Can’t write, won’t write’ campaign
- Peter Wilby>> Courts must rule on privacy – because parliament hasn’t | The Guardian
- Marcus Partington>> Human Rights Act was meant to protect press freedom
- Press Gazette>>PCC hits back at claims that public has lost confidence
- Media Guardian>>Editors tangle with the zip code
- Roy Greenslade >> It’s a long time since a prime minister went in to bat for the PCC”
- Press Gazette>>Sun changes caption for manipulated Libya photo
- UK Human Rights Blog>> Telegraph reporting of family case was “unbalanced, inaccurate and just plain wrong”
Contempt of court
- Out-Law.com>>IP addresses alone cannot be used to identify individuals, US judge says
- Out-Law.com>>Using a computer against company policy is the same as hacking, says US court
- Index on Censorship>> Is the internet eroding journalism standards?
Finally, we’re not sure what’s going on at the Mirror’s picture desk… something doesn’t look right.
You can find a full stream of aggregated media law news via @medialawUK on Twitter; and Meeja Law tweets go out via @meejalaw. Contact me via @jtownend or jt.townend [at] gmail.com. Relevant journalism and law events here: https://meejalaw.com/events/.