The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
News & Current Events

Milly Dowler's Parents and Hugh Grant Give Evidence To Leveson Enquiry

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#16New Post! Nov 22, 2011 @ 19:44:56
Still, no freedoms are at stake. All those things are illegal. The thing lackijg is prosecution.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#17New Post! Nov 23, 2011 @ 06:22:28
@ninozara Said

Apart from all those things are illegal. If the CPS started prosecuting more, and handing out harsher punishments that type of behaviour would likely die down.

Once the government start interfering with the press, it is a downwards slope. What you are talking about would the start of the state controlling what can and can't be said.

But whatever, if you want to be in that type of society, go to China or something. I'm through.



Generally speaking, Nino, I think you are quite right. The CPS should prosecute these things.

But we need to look at the distinction between what is a crime and what is a civil offence.

For instance (just an example, ok..?): We all know that newspapers libel people all the time, however, they are very cunning in the way they do it and they have lawyers who are very experienced practitioners in this kind of law.

Libel may not necessarily be a criminal act. It can be a tort which is a civil wrong and is therefore dealt with in the civil courts. For a libel to be a criminal act it must be defamatory or seditious and obscene. In order to prove seditious and obscene or defamatory libel, the plaintiff must first prove that a breach of the peace was likely to have occured as a result of the libel.

This is often extremely difficult to prove and most private citizens do not have the resources nor the will to pursue this line. They instead take the civil route which in itself can be exhausting and - if they don't win - extremely expensive.

The newspapers know this and will use the legal expertise at their disposal to prevaricate, hinder and delay the outcome, playing a war of attrition against the plaintiff and all the time, benefitting from the "news" that the case against them generates.

It has been argued in the past that the amount of copy generated by a libel case against the newspaper pays for any fine that results from it..!!

There have been some victories for high profile individuals in the courts in libel cases, but they are relatively few and even fewer still for ordinary citizens who cannot afford the risk of massive legal fees. Most will usually settle out of court for significantly smaller amounts for which the newspapers are happy to call a result.

Even when fines or compensation are ordered, it is the newspaper which pays it, not the reporters who hounded the people and made the libel or the editors who sanctioned its publication.

The law of criminal libel is several centuries old and very much out of date in the 21st century. It desperately needs updating to protect people from the abuses that the newspapers practice regularly and with almost certain immunity from prison for its employees. If a newspaper proprietor, or even an editor or two found themselves doing porridge, or having to pay the fines or compensation awarded they might be more careful.

I am not in favour of restricting the freedom of the press to report matters that are In the public interest but the regular and cynical abuse of the law, with almost complete immunity for the offenders when pursuing stories which have little or no genuine public interest is beyond the pale.

The Leveson Enquiry could (should..?) be a watershed for British newspaper publication. Self regulation isn't working, that much is clear. If Leveson recommends that the law as it stands isn't restraining the practices of how the newspapers go about getting their stories, or if it isn't targetting those who actually commit offences such as libel, then it should be reviewed.

The freedom of the press to report stories that are in the public interest is sacrosanct, but there needs to be tighter control on how they go about their investigations, which take modern methods of information gathering into account when a citizens right to privacy is unreasonably compromised

And the guilty individuals should also face the possibility of prosecution and penalty for their part in proceedings, not just the newspapers themselves.
Eaglebauer On July 23, 2019
Moderator
Deleted



Saint Louis, Missouri
#18New Post! Nov 23, 2011 @ 15:23:01
@Jacquesmetat Said

The line might be in a good place but the press constantly ignore it and dont just step over it, they f***ing well leap over it like triple jumpers on speed.

The press dont give a f*** about anybodys privacy or rights. all they care about it getting the story. Press ethics is a massive oxymoron.

I would like to see a situation where before the press are allowed to publish any story relating to an individual private citizen they must first get the permission of the person concerned or the approval of an ethics committee to establsh that it is in the public interest. I dont give a s*** if it means the news is delayed a day or two. too bad. the press have had plenty of chances to police themselves and they just keep abusing the trust that the public puts in them. they cant be trusted. time for limited legislation.



I actually agree with much of this to a point...I do believe the press ignores the line quite often and I've been witness several times in the past to the press getting information and running with it that isn't factually correct, but I was speaking mainly on the line itself and where it is.
Jennifer1984 On July 20, 2022
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#19New Post! Nov 24, 2011 @ 05:48:33
@Eaglebauer Said

I actually agree with much of this to a point...I do believe the press ignores the line quite often and I've been witness several times in the past to the press getting information and running with it that isn't factually correct, but I was speaking mainly on the line itself and where it is.



Ahhhh, there's the rub. "The Line". Where is it, and how blurred has it become...?

Some journalists play right on the very edge of the line and for others, if you give them an inch they'll steal your entire tape measure.

Have you followed the story of the phone hacking scandal, Eagle..? I should imagine it hasn't been given much prominence in the US, although it may be possible that such things are happening over there too, but haven't come to light yet, at least, not on a national scale.

I'm not sure how American law would treat such a thing, too. One would think that our laws would be fairly similar, but as this is all a case of the abuse of new technology, being put on trial under centuries old legislation here, what does the US do that is more "modern", I wonder..?


.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Mon Jun 04, 2012 @ 09:33
8 1674
New posts   Security
Sat Feb 07, 2009 @ 09:35
2 886
New posts   Random
Thu Jan 29, 2009 @ 17:15
10 1074
New posts   Entertainment
Sat Jun 14, 2008 @ 00:19
5 606
New posts   Science
Sat Jul 08, 2006 @ 19:29
14 1518