- monthly subscription or
- one time payment
- cancelable any time
"Tell the chef, the beer is on me."
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
April 14 2010
February 24 2010
Simon Singh update: senior judge baffled by ‘artificiality’ of case
Science writer Simon Singh, who is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) went to the court of appeal on Tuesday, to challenge an earlier ruling by Justice Eady.
Index on Censorship reported that Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, England’s most senior judge, said he was “baffled” by the defamation suit – although his comments would not affect the judgement in the Court of Appeal.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said he was “troubled” by the “artificiality” of the case. “The opportunities to put this right have not been taken,” Lord Judge said.
It’s argument of fact vs comment. If Singh’s claims are deemed “comment” in the Court of Appeal, he will secure the right to use a “fair comment” defence. A date has not been set for delivery of the appeal ruling, according to Index on Censorship.
“Fair comment” was an issue raised in yesterday’s Culture, Media and Sport select committee report: the Committee acknowledged “fears of the medical and science community are well-founded” and advised the government to “take account of these concerns in a review of the country’s libel laws, in particular the issue of fair comment in academic peer-reviewed publications”. But the Libel Reform campaign, a coalition between the organisations Sense About Science, Index on Censorship and English PEN, called for a fair comment defence available to everyone, not just in academic journals:
The campaign welcomes the Committee’s acceptance of the seriousness of the problem, especially in light of the recent Simon Singh and Ben Goldacre libel cases; but has raised “concerns that ghettoising fair comment in peer reviewed journals would not have helped Simon Singh in his libel case whatsoever, it’s important that a fair comment defence is available to everyone, not just for academic discussion out of the reach of ordinary people.”
Similar Posts:
- Simon Singh goes to Court of Appeal
- Index on Censorship: Simon Singh wins leave to appeal in BCA libel case
- Video: Simon Singh on libel tourism and the ‘chilling effect’ on science journalism
- Comedy stars stage benefit gig for libel reform
- Telegraph.co.uk: It’s too late for me, but libel laws must change, says Singh
November 20 2009
Presentation: Law for bloggers and journalists (UK)
Yesterday I hosted a session on law for my MA Online Journalism students, which I thought I would embed below.
Some background: I teach all my sessions in a coffee shop in central Birmingham – anyone can drop in. This week I specifically invited local bloggers, and so the shape of the presentation was very much flavoured by contributions from The Lichfield Blog’s Philip John; Nick Booth from Podnosh and BeVocal; Talk About Local’s Nicky Getgood; Hannah Waldram of the Bournville Village Blog; Gavin Wray, Matthew Mark, and Mike Rawlins of Stoke’s Pits N Pots. The editor of the Birmingham Post Marc Reeves also came for an hour to share his own experiences in the regional press.
Two things occurred to me during the process of preparation and delivery of the session. The first is that law in this context is much broader: as well as the classic areas for journalists such as defamation, you have to take into account online publishing issues such as terms and conditions, data protection and user generated content.
Secondly, I’ve long been an advocate of conversational teaching styles (one of the reasons I teach in a coffee lounge) and this was a great example of that in practice. The presentation below is just a series of signposts – the actual session lasted 4 hours and included various tangents (some of which I’ve incorporated into this published version). Experiences in the group of students and guests ranged across broadcasting, print, photography, online publishing, academic study, and international law, and I came out of the session having learned a lot too.
I hope you can add some more points, examples, or anything I’ve missed. Here it is:
Law for bloggers and journalists (UK)
View more presentations from Paul Bradshaw.
Older posts are this way
If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.
Super-injunctions and libel reform at the Frontline Club (video)
Last night’s debate at the Frontline Club saw Carter-Ruck senior partner Nigel Tait (wearing a ‘Hated by the Guardian’ badge) go head to head with science writer Simon Singh and the Guardian’s David Leigh.
Also joining them on the panel was David Hooper, a media law specialist and partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain and chair Clive Coleman, presenter of Radio 4’s Law in Action (and a former barrister).
Catch up with the debate here:
Highlights included Tait’s version of the Trafigura super-injunction versus Leigh’s; discussion around ‘libel tribunals’ to resolve cases more quickly and more cheaply; and a chance audience encounter between a film-maker who was sued and the very lawyer that sued her.
I spoke to Simon Singh afterwards about the ongoing libel case he’s fighting over a Guardian article published in 2008. Singh is celebrating a victory in the Court of Appeal to defend his article as fair comment, but the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has not yet dropped its case.
“The case could carry on for another two years; they could go to Supreme Court,” he said. “I’m more than happy to discuss it in a trial, the statements I made in the article.”
“I’m much happier with the position it stands now, as opposed to two weeks ago.”
But he added, he’s annoyed and angry that it’s taken a couple of years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to decide the meaning of a couple of words.
Would he encourage others to stand up as he has? “I think that everyone has to make their own judgement…. You have got to be a little bit unhinged and wealthy to fight these. Most people aren’t that unhinged and aren’t necessarily that wealthy to fight them.”
“Except,” he adds, hesitantly, “the ruling two weeks ago was quite clear, the judges said: ‘we do not want to see scientists being hauled through the libel courts’.”
“My interpretation of their ruling is that the default defence will be one of comment, which immediately gives scientists and researchers a bit more confidence if they go to trial.”
Similar Posts: