# New Press Law in the UK **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2013, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740 "2013-10-31T11:42:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/21 "2013-11-01T10:09:41Z")
> [@JackTheRipperMannii](#): > > Right, your identities are no doubt discoverable and the Crown might get pissed. 🆒 > [@clairobscur](#): > > ??? Why? Contempt of court is not a trivial matter. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/22 "2013-11-01T10:52:09Z")
Our libel laws in the UK have the defence of ‘fair comment’, where a false statement can be made if it is reasonable to make based upon the information that was available, so if someone avers that they have been libelled as a wife beater, but in fact the wife was lying and fell down the stairs - and there was nothing else in the public domain to counter the wife’s lie. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/23 "2013-11-01T11:07:47Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Contempt of court is not a trivial matter. How would you be in contempt of court for posting your opinions about a law on the internet? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/24 "2013-11-01T11:11:19Z")
[nm] ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/25 "2013-11-01T11:12:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > How would you be in contempt of court for posting your opinions about a law on the internet? In fact, how can a court ruling affect anyone who isn’t a party to the suit? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/26 "2013-11-01T12:18:21Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > How would you be in contempt of court for posting your opinions about a law on the internet? I don’t think you can, but I was referring to the current court case which is wrapped up in this. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/27 "2013-11-01T12:21:59Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I don’t think you can, but I was referring to the current court case which is wrapped up in this. And you, as an utterly uninvolved third party, are barred from discussing this case? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/28 "2013-11-01T12:28:11Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > As I understand it, the American press can lie and destroy people’s reputations almost without repercussion. Not so, the U.S. has libel laws, and media outlets do lose libel suits. > [@blindboyard](#): > > _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._ Thanks. Not sure what to make of that “possibly”, though. > [@bengangmo](#): > > How is the requirement to print truth an abrogation of freedom of the press? It certainly can be, depending on who is empowered to define what the truth is, and what their motives are. **Alessan** makes a fine point about the uncertainty of real life, and how punishing being mistaken would have a chilling effect on reporting. Note, however, that I said that it was the power to create and impose a code of conduct, and order corrections to be printed, that amounted to an abrogation, and not a requirement to print the truth. Surely you can think of ways either of those powers could be used to suppress the freedom of the press, and benefit the political class and established power structure. > [@bengangmo](#): > > Fox News? > > The Nose editing thing? > > The paying for the Muslem museum thing? > > Putting a D instead of an R beside names? > > Do we really need to go down the road of showing that people deliberately mischaracterise and misquote in the press? That’s all? One outlet plays fast and lose with a handful of easily verifiable facts? I’m happy to allow for such shenangians, rather than permit the government to decide what I am allowed to read. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/29 "2013-11-01T12:42:37Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > How is the requirement to print truth an abrogation of freedom of the press? The truth (whatever version of it becomes accepted) has a way of coming out, without requiring the Ministry of Truth to pass judgment on the matter. The process can be messy, but then democracy often is a messy affair. > [@Quartz](#): > > Contempt of court is not a trivial matter. If things have gotten so bad in the U.K. that people fear comenting on the Internet regarding a court matter in which they are not personally involved, then no wonder this latest restriction is going down so readily.\* Occasionally parties to a criminal or civil case in the U.S. are specifically prohibited by the judge from commenting to the media about it, but that’s a controversial practice and not common. Uninvolved private citizens are not affected. \*Perhaps Her Majesty’s Royal Web Filtering Service can take a cue from the Chinese and censor Internet postings by British citizens. After all, if you’re posting the truth it won’t affect you, right? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/30 "2013-11-01T12:55:03Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > And you, as an utterly uninvolved third party, are barred from discussing this case? Of course not, but I, like all British citizens, have to be careful about what I say about it. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/31 "2013-11-01T13:09:01Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Of course not, but I, like all British citizens, have to be careful about what I say about it. But why? What could happen to you? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/32 "2013-11-01T13:30:43Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > But why? What could happen to you? To partially answer the “why?” in the case that Quartz is referring to: there are a series of court orders covering this and other related cases, to try and limit the possibility of prejudicing the various proceedings. More here: > **[October 2013 – David Banks Media Law](https://davidbanksmedialaw.com/2013/10/)** > > 4 posts published by David Banks during October 2013 ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/33 "2013-11-01T13:41:22Z")
That seems pretty messed up. Does a judge have absolute power to cite anyone he feels like for contempt? ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/34 "2013-11-01T13:54:11Z")
Yes. While lawyers and litigants argue over the will of god, in a courtroom, the Judge is god. Although, he can be appealed. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/35 "2013-11-01T14:08:55Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > But why? What could happen to you? We just have different laws in the UK around what can and can’t be said regarding ongoing trials. Anything outside of the revelations made in court _may_ be seen as prejudicial and you _could_ be held in contempt. That includes tweets and other social media output AFAIK. The whole social media angle is an interesting one when considering the new press charter. I foresee lucrative times ahead for the lawyers as cases wrangling over exactly what is and is not covered by this. Do we need a new charter? I suspect not. We really only need existing laws to be enforced and the libel laws to be re-vamped. In terms of press regulation the only legal requirement I’d like to see is that an apology for getting it wrong needs to be in the same point size, position and page as the original claim. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/36 "2013-11-01T14:14:26Z")
This seems like a pretty terrible idea to me. It’s like how we got the Patriot Act in the US because OMG TERRORISM! You get a press watchdog because OMG THEY HACKED THAT DEAD GIRL’S PHONE! > [@Alessan](#): > > That seems pretty messed up. Does a judge have absolute power to cite anyone he feels like for contempt? Well, yes, but that’s true everywhere. Whether the contempt order is valid is another matter. It’s possible for nonparties to be in contempt if they have knowledge of orders governing a trial, or injunctions, or whatever, and deliberately violate them, but in pretty limited circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/37 "2013-11-01T15:28:24Z")
I can say what I like about a current case, through to stating that I believe a person is guilty since this is my opinion and not based upon undisclosed information. If I have undisclosed information, then that is open to discovery. Libel is the knowing assertion of a falsehood, but if I have reasonable grounds for my assertion, then it is fair comment. I can and will comment on this case in he courts because the jury is restricted from independent discovery. I think the accused Rebeka et all are guilty as hell, and that only a tiny part of their activities have been uncovered - true I would not make a good juror for the case. Everything in the media, and was has been stated in various inquiries leads me to believe this and there have been many individuals who have suffered from press reports, from celebrities to ordinary Joes. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/38 "2013-11-01T16:30:59Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > To partially answer the “why?” in the case that Quartz is referring to: there are a series of court orders covering this and other related cases, to try and limit the possibility of prejudicing the various proceedings. More here: > > [October 2013 – David Banks Media Law](http://davidbanksmedialaw.wordpress.com/2013/10/) I can’t see how any of this would place me at risk of contempt by expressing my considered opinion that this Royal Charter is an odious infringement on press freedom. After all, I’m not insulting or villifying a witness, nor is my opinion likely to prejudice the trial in any way. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/39 "2013-11-01T16:40:39Z")
> [@PaulParkhead](#): > > I can’t see how any of this would place me at risk of contempt by expressing my considered opinion that this Royal Charter is an odious infringement on press freedom. > > After all, I’m not insulting or villifying a witness, nor is my opinion likely to prejudice the trial in any way. The criminal conduct in contempt is the wilful disobedience of a Court order. In this case their are certain reporting restrictions in place. It means in essence that the press cannot report certain types of information for a period that the Court has deemed. You can give your opinion all you want as can the press. All they cannot do is release certain information they know that the court restricted. Freedom of speech is an important right. However no society can function if a person can disobey a court order on their own whim. The right forum to challenge judicial screwups are the Appellate Court or the legislature. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740/40 "2013-11-01T17:02:46Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > The criminal conduct in contempt is the wilful disobedience of a Court order. In this case their are certain reporting restrictions in place. It means in essence that the press cannot report certain types of information for a period that the Court has deemed. > > You can give your opinion all you want as can the press. All they cannot do is release certain information they know that the court restricted. > > Freedom of speech is an important right. However no society can function if a person can disobey a court order on their own whim. The right forum to challenge judicial screwups are the Appellate Court or the legislature. I understand and that makes sense. It’s just that there are many non-British posters here who are getting the impression that we’re somehow prohibited from expressing our opinions on the law. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-press-law-in-the-uk/672740.md?page=3)