-
Meeja Law
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:
-
Subscribe by email!
-
Subscribe by RSS
-
Research: Media lawyers, journalists and bloggers
Please get in touch with your views and experiences of libel and privacy law in England and Wales. -
Media Law for Bloggers
-
@jtownend on Twitter
- still time to submit abstract for @legalscholars Media & Comms section to @paulwragg78 [d/line: 24th Apr] bit.ly/1CrKmBJ #medialaw 3 days ago
- Brighton Pavilion CV page looking a bit patchy! bit.ly/1HPxHZm @CarolineLucas @purna_sen @mitch_1uk @democlub @democlubCVs 5 days ago
- browsing potential MPs’ CVs, by constituency - new @democlub initiative: @democlubcvs / bit.ly/1HPx4z8 5 days ago
- RT @steiny: Is this a first? The CVs of all the candidates for election in a constituency all side by side cv.democracyclub.org.uk/candidates/659… Such a gr… 5 days ago
- phew, paper done & great Qs! now "Share & share alike? Trust anonymisation & data sharing" - Marion Oswald & Helen James @_UoWCIR #slsa2015 1 week ago
-
@meejalaw on Twitter
- RT @JTownend: ...contacted by @igavels about inappropriate use of gavel in @meejalaw logo … there’s a Tumblr of course: http://t.co/o3EERPG… 4 months ago
- [Scotland] COPFS: Guidance on cases involving Communications sent via Social Media: bit.ly/1zgEoBh #medialaw 4 months ago
- [Scotland] COPFS release: Crown Office sets out social media prosecution policy: bit.ly/1zEniLY #medialaw 4 months ago
- RT @infolawcentre: New post: An open and linkable Leveson report… inspiration for legal and policy documents? bit.ly/1xWxXEC cc @ro… 4 months ago
- RT @IndexCensorship: #PressRegulation in the #UK? Share your thoughts with @impressproject today 3-4pm GMT http://t.co/iwi8jFEpf6 5 months ago
-
Blogroll
- 5RB – media & entertainment law
- BBC College of Journalism – Law
- BBC Freedom of Information
- Blackstone's Statutes Media Law 3e – resources
- British Journal of Photography – campaigns
- Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism
- Channel 4 Producer's Handbook – Media Law
- City Legal Research
- CRITique commercial law blog
- David Banks
- David Price Guide to Media Law
- Delia Venables’ legal resources
- Digital Media Law (US)
- Digital Media Law Project
- Don’t Get Fooled Again
- Drawnalism
- EPUK resources
- George Brock
- Guardian Freedom of Information
- Guardian Legal Network
- Guardian.co.uk – media law
- Heather Brooke’s blog
- HMCS glossary of legal terms
- I’m a Photographer Not a Terrorist
- Index on Censorship
- Informationa Rights and Wrongs
- Inforrm blog
- IP Media Law
- Jack of Kent
- Jonathan Hewett
- Journal Local
- Journalism.co.uk – media law
- Law Bore
- Learn WordPress.com
- Learnmore
- LSE Media Law Policy Project
- Matt Buck
- McNae’s student resources
- Media Standards Trust
- MediaPaL@LSE
- Ministry of Justice
- mySociety
- Ofcom Watch
- One Brick Court – news
- out-law.com
- panGloss
- PCC – links to regulators
- Photo Legal
- Press Gazette – media law
- Recent decisions in England&Wales Court of Appeal (civil)
- Recent decisions in England&Wales High Court (Queen’s Bench)
- Reframing Libel Symposium
- Robert Sharp
- ScraperWiki
- TabloidWatch
- Talk About Local
- The Private Lives of Others
- The Small Places
- UK Human Rights Blog
- Wannabe Hacks
- WhatDoTheyKnow
-
Recent Posts
- Legal records and the ‘right to be forgotten': Google Spain blog series and event
- A sensible proposal for online recording of reporting restrictions
- The impact of libel and privacy on UK-based online journalists, bloggers and hyperlocals – some survey data
- SLS Media & Communications Section: Call for Papers 2014
- Promotion: IBC Defamation and Privacy Conference 2014
-
Archives
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
-
academic research access to justice blogging comment contempt of court courts data defamation digital open justice events freedom of expression freedom of information human rights journalism leveson inquiry media ethics media law media law mop-up media law resources media regulation newspapers phone hacking press freedom privacy public interest reporting restrictions social media social networking super injunctions Uncategorized
Cleland Thom: Laws that can criminalise journalists
In this guest post, Cleland Thom, a media trainer, argues that there is a “frightening range” of English legislation that inhibits good journalism
There is an increasing range of legislation that can criminalise journalists.
The alleged law-breaking by journalists at the News of the World is indefensible. But Parliament has made it almost impossible for journalists to operate effectively without falling foul of legislation.
So when the prime minister David Cameron refers to a “free and vibrant media, completely unafraid to challenge authority”, but one that “operates within the law”, he must realise that the second part of that statement makes the first part impossible.
Here’s some other recent legislation that is already being used to harass and potentially criminalise photographers:
1. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act contains a new offence of “harassment intended to deter lawful activities” – ie, harassment that is intended to persuade someone to do something he is not obliged to do, or to stop him from doing something he is legally entitled to do.
This measure can be used to prevent photographers “camping” outside people’s homes and prevent a photographer from door-stepping someone – either they, or even one of their neighbours, can claim that the presence of the press was causing them alarm or distress.
The same act also gives police the power to order someone to leave the area around someone’s house, and not to return for up to three months.
2. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 says that a person must not pursue a course of conduct that amounts to harassment (alarming the person or causing them distress) of someone else and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment.
Photographers are vulnerable here – but the action must have occurred at least twice. The prosecution does not have to prove intent, as with many other offences – only that the conduct occurred in circumstances where a reasonable person would have realised that harassment would result.
3. A photographer could be arrested without a warrant and could have his property searched. He could be fined or jailed and vulnerable to a civil action for damages.
4. Photographers are also vulnerable under the Public Order Act 1986, if they use threatening, abusive or insulting words of behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
5. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 also established a new offence of intentional harassment – using threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, intending to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress.
6. Police sometimes use the Highways Act 1980 to prevent “willful obstruction of the free passage along the highway” to arrest photographers who are getting in the way at a demonstration or major incident.
7. If a photographer on public land persists in taking photos after a policeman tells him to stop, or argues with the policeman, he can be arrested under the Police Act 1964 for obstructing an officer in the execution of his duty.
8. Photographers / photojournalists can be stopped and searched by police using anti-terrorism legislation, under the Terrorism Act 2000, if an officer suspects the photos are part of hostile terrorism reconnaissance. The problem for the media is that officers do not have to suspect the photographer is a terrorist. This allows police to claim a search is necessary to find out if the images are part of hostile terrorism reconnaissance.
9. Under the same act, a journalist can be prosecuted for eliciting, or publishing information about someone who is, or has been, a member of the Armed Forces, UK Intelligence Services, or a police officer – if the information could be useful to someone preparing or committing an act of terrorism.
10. Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 can make it a criminal offence to take photographs of police officers. Under S76, eliciting, publishing or communicating information on members of the Armed Forces, Intelligence Services and police officers which is “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism” will be an offence carrying a maximum jail term of 10 years.
11. The police have no powers to stop a photographer taking shots in a public place. But this hasn’t stopped them – and others – using the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 harass and intimidate photographers and journalists – see, for example this article and the links below:
… and too many others to list [other examples can be found here].
There’s plenty more legislation like this. The media has never faced such an onslaught of restrictive legislation in its history, or a police force who enthusiastically use, and misuse, the powers that Parliament has given them.
I don’t defend what the NOTW reporters did.
But I hope Lord Justice Leveson also uses his judicial inquiry to investigate why there is such a frighteing range of legislation that inhibits good journalism. And why the police, sometimes illegally, enforce it.
Cleland Thom runs the CTJT e-college and is @ClelandthomCTJT on Twitter.
Share this:
Like this:
Related