|
||||||||
Section 40: undermines democracy, arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,722
|
Section 40: undermines democracy, arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...cracy-offends/ Quote:
The real worry is Section 40, which would force every newspaper not signed up to IMPRESS to pay all the costs in any libel case brought against them, even if their journalism is vindicated in court. Such a punitive regime intended for only a few organisations offends the most basic principle of equality before the law. Also begs the question - what happens to the blogger who will not be a member of any regulatory regime but uncovers wrong doing by a government department.
. . . It is precisely those newspapers that do more investigative exposés – and are consequently more vulnerable to a deluge of claims – that would be hit for six financially under that unequal regime. In addition, Section 40 only applies to England and Wales, which risks fragmenting the law across the UK . . . the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Communications heard in evidence, it is far from clear which online organisations would be exempt from the new cost rules, or how those roles could be applied against web-based outlets located abroad – raising a long list of unanswered questions about the consistency, fairness and enforceability of the regime. . . . Lord Lester QC, an expert in civil liberties and libel law, says imposing Section 40 on newspapers would be “arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair. . . . In recent years, investigations by newspapers have exposed official failures over widespread child abuse, brought organised criminals to justice, revealed doping and cheating in professional sport, and held politicians to account for their use of public money. Would all that have happened if editors knew they would have to pay the costs of anyone who sued them over such stories? |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,030
|
I can't understand how making anyone pay the massive courts costs if they win a case can ever be justified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,961
|
Quote:
I can't understand how making anyone pay the massive courts costs if they win a case can ever be justified.
I also don't understand how Impress, funded by Max Mosley, can become a state backed press regulator. People's privacy does need to be protected but this smacks of those in positions of authority etc wanting the ability of the press to investigate them to be severely restricted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,171
|
Quote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...cracy-offends/
Also begs the question - what happens to the blogger who will not be a member of any regulatory regime but uncovers wrong doing by a government department. These are cases where the libelled people raised the cash to go to court, but most can't, and that's what the papers want to maintain. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,722
|
Quote:
The reform proposed by Leveson would allow people to sue papers without needing a lot of money, which is why the papers oppose it. All they need to do to avoid the danger the Telegraph warns of is sign up to it, but they'd rather keep their power to libel people with no fear. The papers who get dragged into court aren't those who carry out investigative journalism in the public interest, but papers like the Sun, which, amongst other cases, had to compensate the muslim bus driver they accused of keeping passengers waiting while he said his prayers, totally untrue. Or the Mail, which has just paid out £150,000 to the man Katie Hopkins accused of being a terrorist, totally untrue. Or the eight papers who had to compensate Robert Murant after wrongly calling him a child molester.
These are cases where the libelled people raised the cash to go to court, but most can't, and that's what the papers want to maintain. Further it is fundamentally wrong, that a person is punished if they have not done anything wrong. If a paper publishes an expose on a person or government minister - it should only have to pay costs should it the story be found to be false and not until. Nor is the independence of the regulator entirely certain - the press is known as the forth estate for a reason - and that is to hold the government to account. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 19,171
|
Quote:
And what of the independent blogger who will also be caught, or at least may not since the rules are not completely settled.
Further it is fundamentally wrong, that a person is punished if they have not done anything wrong. If a paper publishes an expose on a person or government minister - it should only have to pay costs should it the story be found to be false and not until. Nor is the independence of the regulator entirely certain - the press is known as the forth estate for a reason - and that is to hold the government to account. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:30.

