DOCSLIB.ORG

BJTC Media Law, Regulation & Ethics Student Pocketguide 2017

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BJTC Media Law, Regulation & Ethics Student Pocketguide 2017 BJTC Media Law, Regulation & Ethics Student PocketGuide 2017 In association with Goldsmiths, University of London. By Tim Crook 1 Contents 2 Contents 3 Key Principles on a Page: Avoiding the six media law sins 4 Brief tabulated overview of legal system of England and Wales 5 Basic information about the legal system 6 Introduction to main themes of media law: SPECTACULAR Professional moral values and ethics 16 BBC Values 17 Respecting the rule of law 18 Impartiality 20 Professional skills to a high standard Primary Media Law in detail 21 Contempt 24 Reporting court cases 26 Defamation also usually known as libel 30 Libel defences 33 Malicious Falsehood 35 Privacy 37 Background to privacy law development 45 Making editorial privacy decisions in relation to images 50 Copyright/Intellectual Property Additional briefings 55 Reporting Courts-Martial 58 Reporting Inquests 61 Questions to ask yourself in relation to your reporting 65 Analysis of Ethics and Law- case history from the past Secondary Media Law- regulation by statutory and industry bodies 67 Introduction to regulation as secondary media law 68 Ofcom Regulation and the BBC 73 Accuracy, Opportunity to reply, Due Impartiality 78 Sources 80 Privacy 82 Harassment and Intrusion into grief or shock 83 Professional Values 87 Reporting children and ‘children in sex cases’ 91 Hospitals 92 Reporting of Crime 95 Clandestine devices and subterfuge 97 Victims of Sexual Assault 98 Discrimination 99 Financial Journalism 100 The Public Interest 101 Harm and Offence Short Summaries 104 UK Contempt and Reporting Crime 104 Guide to Court Reporting Key facts and Checklist 105 Libel, Privacy, Accuracy and Balance 106 News Gathering, Story Finding and Public Interest 106 Protecting Children 107 Copyright and Intellectual Property 108 Laws and Rules for Elections and Politics 108 The Secret World 110 Scottish and Northern Ireland differences and issues 110 Social Media/Online/Blogging- Risks in media law 113 US Society Professional Association of Journalists’ Code of Ethics 115 US Radio, Television, Digital News Association Code of Ethics 2 Key Principles on a Page. Avoiding the six media law sins. Key notes 1. Libel 2. Privacy 3. Contempt 4. Copyright 5. Criminal 6. Damnum Sine Injuria (ethics/regulation) 1. Libel = serious harm to reputation by online/radio/tv publication including implication and innuendo where meaning is constructed by victim and authorial intention no defence/ commentary/picture juxtaposition always a risk BUT defended through privilege: court/government proceeding = Absolute/high qualified. Public meeting/press conference and release at low qualified level, fairness and accuracy paramount and gist of alleged person’s side when demanded required at the low qualified level. Innocent dissemination/Truth (in substance and fact)/Honest Opinion based on true facts or privileged material/Public Interest through neutral reportage (not adopting allegations) editorial decision-making conditions considered/Web operator’s system/defence for user generated comments moderated or not moderated- complaints need to be addressed within 48 hours/qualified privilege for academic conferences and papers that are peer-reviewed. 2. Privacy = publishing and intrusive conduct about private information and situations- matters of public interest trumping on balance with intense focus of circumstances including confidential information where there is a reasonable/legitimate expectation of privacy and right to family life/filming & sound recording in private geography without permission. 3. Contempt = publishing in any way to third party (including by social media) creating a substantial risk of serious prejudice to administration of justice when cases are active after arrest/warrant/opening inquest hearing or impeding process of justice by monstering and thereby intimidating witnesses/suspects. 4. Criminal = committing crimes through conduct and publication (intention sometimes is not required to be proved) like contempt, disobeying court orders even when wrong (max 2 years jail/unlimited fine/prosecution by attorney general), but more particularly anything that can lead to identification of sexual offence complainants/young people juveniles (17 & under)/harassing by causing distress on at least 2 occasions/computer and phone interception/bribing/and agreeing to incite a civil servant (police officer/service-person etc.) to commit misconduct in public office. Since 2010 Bribery Act paying sources for information likely to be an offence (no public interest defence). Media have to consider risk of people who know victims doing their own detective work to put two and two together. This means pixilation, silhouetting and electronic voice distortion is not enough. Actors have to be used. Individual journalists not just editors can be held liable for criminal offences. 5. Copyright = publishing substantial part of image, script, publication, table, database of person/organization without permission unless there is a defence of fair dealing by criticism/review, parody, ‘quotation or otherwise’, or use in reporting current event BUT photographs excluded from current event defence, rare public interest defence available where image is something so awful/outrageous/depicting wrong and no other way of reporting. Also defence of public domain 70 years after death of author/70 years after death of director/producer/composer/original production (but beware of other layered copyright interests. Only photographs/images put into public domain prior July 1912 safe from copyright liability. 6. Damnum Sine Injuria (ethics/regulation) = being nasty/unpleasant/discourteous/using people instrumentally instead of intrinsically/being on the wrong site of prevailing ‘public interest’/breaching IPSO Editors’ Code/Ofcom Code/IMPRESS Code/BBC Editorial Guidelines, employer’s contract/professional trade union’s code of honour/not treating other people as you would yourself. 3 Brief Over-view of Legal System England & Wales. The diagram ‘The Structure of the Courts’ features on page 6 of the excellent guide on the Judicial System of England and Wales at https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/international-visitors-guide-10a.pdf 4 Some basic information about the nature of the legal system in England and Wales. There are three legal jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. Scotland has its own legal system and so does Northern Ireland though that is more similar to the system in England and Wales. The English and Welsh system affects the vast majority of the UK population; that’s 57 million. Scotland has a population of 5.3 million and Northern Ireland 1.8 million. There are two spheres of law: criminal law and civil law. Criminal System. Crimes are mostly investigated by the police and prosecuted by the independent Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) whose head is the Director of Public Prosecutions. (DPP) The police process involves either an on the sport fine, or reporting an offence for minor motoring crimes, or arrest for the more serious offences. After an arrest suspects will be questioned, there will be the collection of evidence and a decision will be made to charge or not by the CPS. Most crimes are dealt with in Magistrates Courts that can sit with full-time District Judges or panels of lay magistrates. These courts can sentence to a maximum of 6 months for a single offence and up to one year for two offences. If they think a crime with a high maximum penalty requires harsher punishment they can refer the case to the Crown Court. In March 2015, the cap of £5,000 on fines by Magistrates Courts was lifted. When people are arrested for very serious crimes, known as indictable offences, they appear first at the Magistrates Court and the case is then immediately transferred to the Crown Court for trial. Trial at the Crown Court takes place in front of a jury of 12 people which decides the facts in terms of a guilty or not guilty verdict. A single judge decides matters of law and imposes the sentence. The Prosecution have to prove the cases so that the jury are sure- used to be known as beyond reasonable doubt. Appeals against sentence and verdict go the Court of Appeal- Criminal Division. Civil System. Civil wrongs in law are litigated by private parties known as the claimant and defendant. Small disputes involving property and services of less than £5,000 are dealt with in the Small Claims Court. The parties usually represent themselves. Disputes and claims for larger amounts are sued over in the County Courts with single judges deciding the facts on the balance of probabilities and making any decision concerning damages, or injunction. Disputes involving larger potential claims (over £15,000) are heard before the High Court that mainly sits in London, but also sits in regional centres such as Birmingham, and Manchester. The High Court has several divisions: Chancery, Queen’s Bench Division, Family and Administrative which can deal with first instance cases for judicial review or appeals on points of law from County and Magistrates courts. It is very rare for civil actions to be decided by juries. It is now only known to happen in actions for malicious prosecution or unlawful imprisonment. There is an Appeal Court Civil Division and further appeals on points of law of general public importance can be heard at the UK Supreme Court. If there are human rights’ issues there is recourse to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and if there are European Union law issues appeals can be made to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. While the UK remains a member of the EU, the rulings of the ECJ are binding. After ‘Brexit’, the government has not yet decided on the status of EU law before or after the UK’s official departure. Under section 2 of the 1998 Human Rights Act, UK courts are supposed to ‘take into account’ ECtHR rulings. Under section 3 the interpretation of UK legislation ‘must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights’.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Peers Created Have Fallen from 244 Under David Cameron’S Six Years As Prime Minister to Only 37 to Date Under Theresa May
    \ For more information on DeHavilland and how we can help with political monitoring, custom research and consultancy, contact: +44 (0)20 3033 3870 [email protected] Information Services Ltd 2018 0 www.dehavilland.co.uk INTRODUCTION & ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 2 CONSERVATIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Diana Barran MBE .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Garnier QC ........................................................................................................................... 5 The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Haselhurst.................................................................................................................................. 7 The Rt. Hon. Peter Lilley ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Catherine Meyer CBE ................................................................................................................................................... 10 The Rt. Hon. Sir Eric Pickles ........................................................................................................................................ 11 The Rt. Hon. Sir John
    [Show full text]
  • Torin Douglas Media Masters - November 13, 2014 Listen to the Podcast Online, Visit
    Torin Douglas Media Masters - November 13, 2014 Listen to the podcast online, visit www.mediafocus.org.uk Welcome to Media Masters, a series of one-to-one interviews with people at the top of the media game. Today I’m joined by Torin Douglas. Torin started his career as a trainee journalist at DC Thomson before joining Campaign magazine as a media writer. After a brief stint at the IBA – the then commercial broadcast regulator – he returned to journalism, editing Marketing Week and then Creative Review. Over the next decade he reported on the media industry for The Times, The Economist and The Independent and presented his own media show on LBC. He then joined the BBC. Their media correspondent for 24 years until his retirement last year, he covered the work of six director generals, the birth of BskyB and the growth of the Murdoch empire, the ongoing debate over press and privacy, the ITV licence auction – and subsequent mergers – and the matter of Jimmy Savile. Having spent a whopping 40 years covering the press, he is now a visiting professor at the University of Bedfordshire, a regular media columnist and director of the Chiswick Book Festival. And, I’m pleased to say, was recently awarded an MBE. Torin, congratulations! Thank you very much! And thank you for joining us. Thank you. Well, where on earth do we start with that? Did you always want to be a journalist? I genuinely did. From the age of about eight I wanted to be a journalist, and I think it was probably that board game, Scoop, which some people might remember, where you had a great big telephone and you turned it, and you got stories to put on the page, and little ads.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom
    FREEDOM ON THE NET 2014 United Kingdom 2013 2014 Population: 64.1 million Internet Freedom Status Free Free Internet Penetration 2013: 90 percent Social Media/ICT Apps Blocked: No Obstacles to Access (0-25) 2 2 Political/Social Content Blocked: No Limits on Content (0-35) 6 6 Bloggers/ICT Users Arrested: No Violations of User Rights (0-40) 15 16 TOTAL* (0-100) 23 24 Press Freedom 2014 Status: Free * 0=most free, 100=least free Key Developments: May 2013 – May 2014 • Filtering mechanisms, particularly child-protection filters enabled on all household and mobile connections by default, inadvertently blocked legitimate online content (see Limits on Content). • The Defamation Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2014, introduced greater legal protections for intermediaries and reduced the scope for “libel tourism,” while proposed amendments to the Contempt of Court Act may introduce similar protections for intermediaries in relation to contempt of court (see Limits on Content and Violations of User Rights). • New guidelines published by the Director of Public Prosecutions in June 2013 sought to limit offenses for which social media users may face criminal charges. Users faced civil penalties for libel cases, while at least two individuals were imprisoned for violent threats made on Facebook and Twitter (see Violations of User Rights). • In April 2014, the European Court of Justice determined that EU rules on the mass retention of user data by ISPs violated fundamental privacy and data protection rights. UK privacy groups criticized parliament for rushing through “emergency” legislation to maintain the practice in July, while failing to hold a public debate on the wider issue of surveillance (see Violations of User Rights).
    [Show full text]
  • Lord Garnier QC
    Lord Garnier QC Lord Garnier QC Call 1976 Silk 1995 Edward Garnier QC is a highly experienced silk in England & Wales and Northern Ireland. His practice includes corporate advisory and financial services work, corporate crime and international human rights as well as defamation, privacy, confidence, malicious falsehood, contempt and related media law cases. His extensive experience in practice is underpinned by a parallel career in politics and as one of the Government’s two Law Officers: he served as an MP from 1992 until 2017 and was HM Solicitor General from 2010 to 2012. He is now in the House of Lords. Edward advises and acts for companies and individuals whose rights have been adversely affected by foreign governments and agencies, including, for example, by asset seizures, imprisonment, extradition applications and Interpol Red Notices, as well as for overseas governments and agencies who are seeking to comply with international standards and the rule of law. He is regularly consulted by NGOs and charitable organisations. When in Government as Solicitor General, he developed and introduced into this jurisdiction from the United States the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, a means of dealing with companies who admit their offending to supplement prosecutions against individuals suspected of economic crime. He appeared for the Serious Fraud Office in two of the DPAs so far approved by the Court, the first one, Standard Bank, in 2014, and the then-largest, Rolls-Royce, in 2017. In 2020-21 he led the legal team acting for two respondent companies in the 11th and 12th DPAs to be approved by the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Words Social Media, Governance, Responsible Research and Innovation
    Original citation: Webb, Helena, Jirotka, Marina, Stahl, Bernd Carsten, Housley, William, Edwards, Adam, Williams, Matthew, Procter, Robert N., Rana, Omer and Burnap, Pete. (2015) Digital wildfires : hyper-connectivity, havoc and a global ethos to govern social media. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45 (3). pp. 193-201. Permanent WRAP url: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/75724 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for- profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher statement: © 2015 This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874267 A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see the ‘permanent WRAP url’ above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.
    [Show full text]
  • How Labour Wins Mapping the Routes to the Next Majority
    Fabian Review www.fabians.org.uk Spring 2012 HOW LABOUR WINS Mapping the routes to the next majority The quarterly magazine of the Fabian Society Volume 124 no 1 £4.95 THE FABIAN SUMMER CONFERENCE Featuring a Q&A with Ed Miliband LABOUR'S next majority 30th June, 10am doors open for an 11am start finishing at around 5pm Millbank Media Centre, Ground Floor, Millbank Tower, 21–24 Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP Tickets for members and concessions are just £10 (£15 for non-members with six months free membership) Come and join the Fabians for our Summer Conference featuring a Question and Answer session with Ed Miliband. Debate Labour’s electoral strategy and put forward your take on some of the ideas we’ve explored in this issue of the Fabian Review. To book your tickets head to www.fabians.org.uk or call 020 7227 4900 EDITORIAL Image: Adrian Teal Age-old lessons Andrew Harrop asks if ongoing public support for pensioner benefits offers the left a way out of its welfare impasse If the polls are to be believed, benefits for pensioners (of which the the poorest get more – which the coali- cutting welfare is very popular. YouGov much-castigated winter fuel payment tion is busy unpicking though its tax reports that fewer than a third of and free bus pass make up just a tiny credit cuts. Labour voters and just 3 per cent of fraction). On top there is a generous A shared system, where every family Conservatives oppose it. This places the means-tested system which has done is a recipient, could open the way for left in a terrible bind, not least because much to reduce pensioner poverty.
    [Show full text]
  • Words Social Media, Governance, Responsible Research and Innovation
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Warwick Research Archives Portal Repository Original citation: Webb, Helena, Jirotka, Marina, Stahl, Bernd Carsten, Housley, William, Edwards, Adam, Williams, Matthew, Procter, Robert N., Rana, Omer and Burnap, Pete. (2015) Digital wildfires : hyper-connectivity, havoc and a global ethos to govern social media. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45 (3). pp. 193-201. Permanent WRAP url: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/75724 Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work of researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for- profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher statement: © 2015 This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2874239.2874267 A note on versions: The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Judgment
    Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) Case No: HQ12D05281 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 24/05/2013 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : The Lord McAlpine of West Green Claimant - and - Sally Bercow Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sir Edward Garnier QC & Kate Wilson (instructed by RMPI) for the Claimant William McCormick QC & David Mitchell (instructed by Carter Ruck) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 16 May 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Mr Justice Tugendhat : 1. This hearing is to determine the meaning of the words complained of in this libel action (“the Tweet”), and whether they are defamatory of the Claimant. The Tweet was published on 4 November 2012. The question of its meaning is being tried separately as a preliminary issue. That is not uncommon in libel actions nowadays, in cases where it is agreed that the trial will be by a judge sitting without a jury. 2. If I find that the Tweet is not defamatory of the Claimant, that will be the end of the action. If I find that it is defamatory, then the case will proceed to the assessment of damages (unless the parties reach an agreement). If I find that the Tweet is defamatory, the Defendant does not seek to defend any defamatory meaning as true, or on any other basis. I am not asked to decide the number of people who read the Tweet and understood it in a defamatory meaning. THE TWEET 3. The Tweet reads: “Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face*” 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Magnus Lawrie TRASH VERSIONALITY for POST
    Magnus Lawrie TRASH VERSIONALITY FOR POST-DIGITAL CULTURE APRJA Volume 3, Issue 1, 2014 ISSN 2245-7755 CC license: ‘Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike’. Magnus Lawrie: TRASH VERSIONALITY... Media Trash continual re-writing of the standards affect- ing social and network-based encounter. The processes renew shared conceptions RHETORIC and pictures, prompt self-refection and pose Following a 14-day visit to parts of the UK, the questions, “whose truth?” and, “whose the United Nations’ special rapporteur on value(s)?”. adequate housing Raquel Rolnik, issued an end-of mission press statement.[1] She INDISPENSABILITY recommended immediate suspension of As quickly as attention has switched away controversial reforms affecting social hous- from the aforementioned episodes, they offer ing tenants.[2] Researched according to us a snapshot of a media landscape in which UN protocol (Gentleman), the advice was trash, as dispensable news and information, however vehemently rejected by the UK is merging with public opinion and political government; the rapporteur’s personal and rhetoric. The combination of booming mass professional credibility were then attacked in culture and creativity produces a variety of the media and elsewhere.[3] images — including data images — which are These changing dynamics, between not easily locatable within the apparatus’ of public and political spheres are especially political, social and economic assemblages. visible online, where social media is infu- Consequently, these images (whether per- encing many areas. In one instance a court sonal or institutional) are open to conjecture. trial was abandoned after new evidence, Their position on the continuum between obtained from a disused Twitter account, media, platform and network transport ren- came to light.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom on the Net 2014
    FREEDOM ON THE NET 2014 United Kingdom 2013 2014 Population: 64.1 million Internet Freedom Status Free Free Internet Penetration 2013: 90 percent Social Media/ICT Apps Blocked: No Obstacles to Access (0-25) 2 2 Political/Social Content Blocked: No Limits on Content (0-35) 6 6 Bloggers/ICT Users Arrested: No Violations of User Rights (0-40) 15 16 TOTAL* (0-100) 23 24 Press Freedom 2014 Status: Free * 0=most free, 100=least free Key Developments: May 2013 – May 2014 • Filtering mechanisms, particularly child-protection filters enabled on all household and mobile connections by default, inadvertently blocked legitimate online content (see Limits on Content). • The Defamation Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2014, introduced greater legal protections for intermediaries and reduced the scope for “libel tourism,” while proposed amendments to the Contempt of Court Act may introduce similar protections for intermediaries in relation to contempt of court (see Limits on Content and Violations of User Rights). • New guidelines published by the Director of Public Prosecutions in June 2013 sought to limit offenses for which social media users may face criminal charges. Users faced civil penalties for libel cases, while at least two individuals were imprisoned for violent threats made on Facebook and Twitter (see Violations of User Rights). • In April 2014, the European Court of Justice determined that EU rules on the mass retention of user data by ISPs violated fundamental privacy and data protection rights. UK privacy groups criticized parliament for rushing through “emergency” legislation to maintain the practice in July, while failing to hold a public debate on the wider issue of surveillance (see Violations of User Rights).
    [Show full text]
  • The BJTC Media Law, Regulation & Ethics Handbook 2021
    The BJTC Media Law, Regulation & Ethics Handbook 2021 By Tim Crook Above Logo for UK Broadcast Journalism Training Council http://www.bjtc.org.uk and Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London. Image by Tim Crook. Published March 15th 2021 by Kultura Press ISBN 978-1-908842-17-6 1 Contents 2 Contents 3 Author 4 Key Principles on a Page: Avoiding the six media law sins 5 Brief tabulated overview of legal system of England and Wales 6 Basic information about the legal system 8 Introduction to main themes of media law: SPECTACULAR Professional moral values and ethics 21 BBC Values 21 Respecting the rule of law 22 Impartiality 26 Professional skills to a high standard Primary Media Law in detail 27 Open Justice 60 Contempt 66 Reporting court cases 70 Reporting Restrictions and the problems in challenging them or breaching them 79 Defamation also usually known as libel 82 Libel defences 87 Malicious Falsehood 88 Privacy 95 Case History Discussion: Sir Cliff Richard v BBC 110 Background to privacy law development 116 Making editorial privacy decisions in relation to images 120 Data Protection Acts and EU General Data Protection Regulation 124 Copyright/Intellectual Property Additional briefings 131 Reporting Courts-Martial 134 Reporting Inquests 138 Questions to ask yourself in relation to your reporting 142 Analysis of Ethics and Law- case history from the past Secondary Media Law- regulation by statutory and industry bodies 145 Introduction to regulation as secondary media law 146 Ofcom Regulation and the BBC 148 The Ofcom Broadcasting Code 154 Accuracy, Opportunity to reply, Due Impartiality 162 Sources 164 Important UK existing media law relating to journalists’ sources 166 Case History Discussion: Robert Norman v United Kingdom 176 Case History Discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Wildfires: Hyper-Connectivity, Havoc and a Global Ethos to Govern Social Media
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282879309 Digital wildfires: hyper-connectivity, havoc and a global ethos to govern social media CONFERENCE PAPER · SEPTEMBER 2015 READS 65 7 AUTHORS, INCLUDING: Marina Jirotka Bernd Carsten Stahl University of Oxford De Montfort University 73 PUBLICATIONS 813 CITATIONS 144 PUBLICATIONS 690 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Omer F. Rana Rob N Procter Cardiff University The University of Warwick 393 PUBLICATIONS 3,039 CITATIONS 241 PUBLICATIONS 2,230 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Available from: Helena Webb Retrieved on: 08 January 2016 Digital wildfires: hyper-connectivity, havoc and a global ethos to govern social media Helena Webb Bernd Carsten Stahl William Housley Marina Jirotka De Montfort University, Department of Adam Edwards University of Oxford, Department of Informatics Matthew Williams Computer Science Leicester, United Kingdom Cardiff University, School of Social Oxford, United Kingdom [email protected] Sciences [email protected] Cardiff, United Kingdom marina.jirotka.cs.ox.ac.uk [email protected] [email protected] Rob Procter Omer Rana [email protected] University of Warwick, Department of Pete Burnap Computer Science Cardiff University, School of Computer Science and Informatics Coventry, United Kingdom [email protected] Cardiff, United Kingdom [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT and describe four key mechanisms that currently govern social The last 5-10 years have seen a massive rise in the popularity of media content. As these mechanisms tend to be retrospective and social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr etc.
    [Show full text]