@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The law of criminal libel is several centuries old and very much out of date in the 21st century.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.