Today a form of voluntary regulation of the press became law in the UK. This allows the Press to seek protection from libel cases by agreeing to a system of regulation and rebuttal.
How much of an inroad to Press Freedom is this.
My view is that as it is purely voluntary, it cannot be seen as a major restriction. If the press is confident that it will be acting legally wrt libel and harassment, then it will not need legal protection. However if it intends to risk using libel and harassment, then it would be in its interests to seek shelter under the law.
Since the link provides not a single detail about the agreement, penalties, or protections, I don’t see how there can be a reasonable discussion of it.
As I understand it, (open to correction), the only defense against libel in the U.K. has been accuracy. In contrast, in the U.S. has allowed mitigating factors of intent and (the lack of) actual harm. I do not see either of those systems being a threat to a free press, but if the new policies in Britain relax the standard that permits only truth as a defense, it would seem to actually make the British press freer.
It’s certainly not something I’d want in America. The regulator is charged with writing a code of conduct for the industry, and can enforce it with stiff fines, as well as being empowered to order that corrections be printed, and where and how they appear. That amounts to an abrogation of freedom of the press, salved only by the voluntary nature of the scheme. The British press would be wise to fight tooth and nail to keep it voluntary.
I agree with the Guardian. Having a “royal charter” put in place over the objections of newspaper publishers, with government regulation of the press (and an implied threat that non-participation will increase susceptibility to libel actions) does indeed sound medieval (and would never remotely be tolerated in the United States).
The U.K. did make some recent progress towards mitigating its reputation as a center for “libel tourism”, but the media and private citizens who challenge powerful lobbies are still far more vulnerable than in the U.S.
Far-reaching libel law reform should remain a priority for free speech advocates in the U.K., to avoid messes like the Simon Singh case.
Do you have a cite for that? I’ve found references to non-participants being liable for larger financial penalties if a court upholds a complaint, but not to being liable for all court costs.
Phone hacking was already illegal, and is being prosecuted. It’s the same with police bribery. Outrage over those crimes might provide political cover for infringement on the freedom of the press, but it certainly doesn’t justify it.
How so? What egregious misbehavior characterizes the American press?
The issue is that there has been a supposed self regulating agency for years that has signally failed in case after case to provide protection or redress even when indictable wrongdoing has been through the legal system.
The media has great power, and therefore has a duty to use it responsibly and provide meaningful self assessment. The IPCC, which is the current body responsible simply has no teeth and is highly biased toward the interests of the media at the expense of individuals freedoms.
Blatant misrepresentation lies and falsehoods are a threat to the liberty and freedom of individuals and the press has failed for decades to address their duties.
Self regulation has not worked, it has not prevented media crime or media abuse and it now boils down to the public having even less trust of most of the newspaper media than politicians - that is really saying a lot about how low our press has descended.
Independent statutory regulation with judicial powers was torpedoed by the press media, who wanted to ensure that any regulatory body would be effectively run by the press barons themselves - which makes a complete mockery of independence.
The option of continuing in the current unsatisfactory arrangement is not an acceptable option, the press themselves have ensured that a non-political regulator using the judiciary as final arbiter will not be viable, so there is little left but go to statute law - hence the input of politicians.
Its a lesson for all of us - great power requires great discretion, the press have abused all that has been entrusted to them, and then they complain about external interference. Sadly, something will be lost in all this, something worth having, and the press itself is responsible for it, and no one else at all.
This sounds exactly like what many American right-wingers say about U.S. news media - it could be taken word for word from a far-right Republican manifesto.
The big difference of course is that no government intrusion on freedom of the press such as the Brits have inflicted on themselves would ever be tolerated by either major party or the citizens of this country.
Comically incorrect. Libel laws exist, but are not weighted in favor of frivolous and punitive lawsuits that are aimed at stifling legitimate debate (I refer you back to the Singh case).
Right, your identities are no doubt discoverable and the Crown might get pissed.
Secondly, there is the so-called carrot of reduced arbitration costs for those publishers inside the new regulatory regime. Those outside could face exemplary damages if they lose a libel or privacy case, and possibly pick up everyone’s costs even if they win. This is no carrot, it is a stick, you can paint it orange and tell the Press it is a carrot all you want, they know a big stick when they see one.
Because you can never be 100% sure about the truth.
Say you have information, which you are 95% certain is accurate, that Monsanto has suppressed information that its latest seed causes cancer. Do you run the story, even though there’s a 5% chance that the corporation will successfully sue you for hundreds of millions? I’m willing to bet that most publications will avoid publishing - they’re businesses, after all - which means there’s a good chance thousands of people will die. How is that a good thing?
