Comments on: UK press-regulation defines "press" so broadly as to include tweeters, Facebook users, bloggers

By: yadayada

yadayada — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:32:00 +0000

Reading the title I thought that this was going to be about expanding protection to bloggers.

Silly me.

By: jhertzli

jhertzli — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 06:08:00 +0000

For some reason, I feel like singing The Star-Spangled Banner now … or at least look up Asimov’s essay on it.

By: NelC

NelC — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:14:00 +0000

Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing.

By: DevinC

DevinC — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:13:00 +0000

While that’s possible, is there any evidence this will be the case? Can the bloggetariat be persuaded not to opt out?

I agree the proposed regulations as they are look pretty bad, but from the comments it sounds a lot less simple than the original post makes it seem.

By: Richard Coates

Richard Coates — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:41:00 +0000

Even better, Labour politicians tried to hijack cross-party reform of those defamation laws to get their press censor through.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:06:00 +0000

This makes perfect sense. Big Media is government, or at least running it from behind the scenes. They really have nothing to lose by being regulated by people who are elected at their whim. This is just an opportunity to suppress opinions from those who can’t afford to buy a political party.

By: Mordicai

Mordicai — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:58:00 +0000

Seems legit!

Well as long as it doesn’t disastrously impact people’s physical health then no harm no foul I guess.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:54:00 +0000

I’m going to sue you for saying that AND I’m going to get a superinjunction so that nobody knows that I’m suing you. And I don’t even have to be a UK citizen to take advantage of those laws. Paradise!

By: Dan Huby

Dan Huby — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:09:00 +0000

It says “publish a website containing news-related material”. That might apply to some bloggers if they have their own websites, but how does it apply to Facebook or Twitter users? They don’t “publish a website” of any sort.

By: AnthonyC

AnthonyC — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:05:00 +0000

Yes, I believe it. I am certainly not claiming unconditional superiority just because I’m American (I don’t know why anyone would think that /sarcasm). It’s just that the idea that one government body has the power to unilaterally pass any law, or violate any right, on its own is… deeply disturbing to me, *even though* I know that in the U.S. the president and the supreme court are imperfect checks at best… and even though I know that having those limits prevents the U.S. congress from doing any number of reasonable things.

By: James Penrose

James Penrose — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:33:00 +0000

“A managed press is a wonderful thing….for the managers.” Robert Heinlein

By: NelC

NelC — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:56:00 +0000

There’s two things here getting conflated, I think. The overreach problem, and the problem of an arrogant press that has often pursued the ‘news’ without regard for the public weal. The latter thing has resulted in laws being broken, as covered by Leveson, and one hopes that the fallout will continue to involve locking up various people for committing those crimes.

But the problem of how to discourage journalists and editors from committing those crimes in the first place will still remain when the last cell door is locked, unless something is done about the pitiable state of public overwatch of the media as it stands. That’s what the Leveson inquiry evolved into: not just the mundane act of uncovering wrong-doing, but the process of doing something about the context.

The Press Complaints Commission in its present form is unfit for purpose and needs to be reformed. Continually casting Leveson and its aftermath as a merely criminal investigation is completely missing the point, Cory, and I wish you’d stop doing it.

The potential overreach is a problem, but so is the present state of the press (not to mention alleged criminals possibly having sufficient influence over certain members of the legislative body to poison any legislation designed to rein their cohort in).

By: Gerald Mander

Gerald Mander — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:40:00 +0000

I’m willing to bet this definition no longer applies when you try to leverage the access advantages of being a member of the press.

By: NelC

NelC — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 18:38:00 +0000

It also helps to not have foundational documents, believe it or not. We do things differently over here, and advocating the US legislative model over the UK’s just isn’t going to fly at this point in our histories. Getting there from here would take a major revolution, and it isn’t going to help with this particular problem right now.

By: AnthonyC

AnthonyC — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:59:00 +0000

It helps to *have* foundational documents. The UK, AFAIK, does not.

By: Mordicai

Mordicai — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:39:00 +0000

Given how sensible British defamation law already is, I think this is in good hands.

By: peregrinus

peregrinus — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:24:00 +0000

er …. yessssss

Zombies don’t count.

By: Sam Cook

Sam Cook — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:04:00 +0000

I’d not thought so much on the affect of mid range sites. I think a lot of it will come down to the sort of fines that can be imposed (currently 1% of the publication’s turnover to a maximum of £1M).

The real question is whether an site that is essentially advertising /has/ a turnover.

I imagine the other likely penalties (e.g. apologise) will be of little consequence (look at what apple did with their apology to samsung)

By: oasisob1

oasisob1 — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:01:00 +0000

Would it necessarily have to be a cadaver at the outset?

By: Sam Cook

Sam Cook — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:59:00 +0000

I guess it depends on whether it remains as just apologies and how damaging not being a subscriber to a code can be (as well as how expensive it is). I think one of the biggest problems with this legislation is how little it is front loaded, the actual codes are probably at least 6 months off being written. Hopefully it won’t be too hard to create competing boards which will stop it becoming an expensive monopoly for those who run the boards.

By: peregrinus

peregrinus — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:54:00 +0000

Difficult to gauge that interstitial moment between the body cooling adequately for the purposes of my snarky comment above and sufficiently for a regulator to fearlessly step in and fervently apply an illiberal law.

By: oasisob1

oasisob1 — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:48:00 +0000

not if peregrinus gets to you first.

By: peregrinus

peregrinus — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:27:00 +0000

Personally, I don’t think this goes far enough. We should all be required to wear microphones that record everything we say for analysis. And when they get the brainwave reading thing done, that too.

We shouldn’t just sit here and think we’re ‘free’. This isn’t fucking Watership Down. The Magna Carta is, like, old.

By: peregrinus

peregrinus — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:25:00 +0000

Interesting pov. Why don’t you tweet / update status to “I am actively looking for cadavers to shag” and see whether those platforms are regulated or not.

By: Darzil Northshield

Darzil Northshield — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 16:18:00 +0000

Maybe we also will be able to stalk and harrass people with cameras without it being considered a criminal offence, now we are also counted as journalists?

By: carpediem

carpediem — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:46:00 +0000

Calm down, Cory.
Did the lack of statutory underpinning save Tweeters who libelled Lord McAlpine? No, they had to cough up. Did it save Paul Chambers, he of the Twitter Joke Trial? No, he was convicted under the Communications Act 2003 (before thankfully winning his appeal).

If people break the law, they will pay a price. The regulator just determines how they pay it.

By: littlebrother

littlebrother — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:44:00 +0000

Which appear to be apologies, according to the version of the agreed wording in the Guardian just now

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/mar/18/press-regulation-deal-key-points

The regulations are to be written by editors journalists and “lay people” at 1/3 of the writing body each.

Which version is this article based on? Labour and LibDems? Conservatives? The new one with all three approving?

By: Scurra

Scurra — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:41:00 +0000

Not really, as that would involve a commission that was overseeing sixty million people as opposed to about sixty organisations. One of those is viable, the other just isn’t.
That doesn’t mean we don’t need some sort of overhaul of the libel/defamation laws to take account of things like Twitter (and the current legislation being debated is woefully terrible at that) but this is about something entirely different.

By: Jay Lofstead

Jay Lofstead — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:40:00 +0000

There is one upside to the terrible overreach–outlets beyond the traditional media are being defined as effectively journalists. One of the problems the US has is that there are only protection for journalists if they work for a recognized outlet. The good argument that I’ve heard is that we should be protecting journalism rather than journalists. This recognition is good if when the rules are finalized or changed that everyone can come for the ride.

By: Guy Herbert

Guy Herbert — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:37:00 +0000

It is worth noting it also covers the websites of campaign groups, PR firms, ordinary commercial companies, lots of people who it will be worth rivals and enemies making trouble for, much more than swarms of individuals. All will be forced to submit to regulation at the first sign of trouble. One quango to rule them all. Just as we were mitigating the chilling effects of libel on public debate, along comes something at least as bad.