Skip to main content

Statute and Press Regulation

There has been some confusion about the issue of statute and press regulation. To me it is important not to have in statute the details of any press regulation.

However, if you look at Section 12 of the 1998 Human Rights Act you will find:

(4)The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—
(a)the extent to which—
(i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or
(ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;
(b)any relevant privacy code.

This, which was introduced at the request of the newspapers, makes clear reference to press regulation in (b)any relevant privacy code..

None of the statute that has been produced as part of the process of establishing a royal charter goes any further than S12(4)(b) as above.

The scheme is optional. It would most likely include this blog as there are articles by a number of authors. However, given that most libel actions are about costs bullying I would be quite happy to sign up to such a scheme if the charges were relatively low.

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
what's laws got to do with anything? they don't apply to you and they're never enforced....

please kill me, i can't take anymore. i can't do it myself as that's illegal also allegedly...i would have to try and defend myself though as otherwise i could be prosecuted for trying to murder myself/ JE law?
Jake Maverick said…
EVERYBODY has immunit from prosecution, except for the victims
http://rt.com/usa/blackwater-cia-extension-prince-273/comments/

good old RT, you won't hear the truth anywhere else...

Popular posts from this blog

Six months for recording a court hearing - Norman Scarth

The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it). It has got into the Argyll News Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week. The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.