DOCSLIB.ORG

Social Media Responsibility and Liability - a UK Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Social Media Responsibility and Liability - a UK Perspective Social Media Responsibility and Liability - a UK Perspective Research project presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws at Tilburg University. Supervisor: Dr. T. Timan Student: John Patrick Waterson Second reader: M. Galic ANR: 906940 August 2016 1 Index 1 Introduction 4 1 1 What is the Problem? 4 1 1 1 Case Study 1 5 1 1 2 Case Study 2 5 1 1 3 Case Study 3 5 1 2 Why is this Relevant? 6 1 3 Research Question 7 1 4 Why is this a Legal and Societal Problem 8 2 Definitions 9 2 1 Trolling 9 2 1 1 Section 127 of the Communications Act 10 2 1 2 Section 4A Public Order Act 11 2 1 3 Section 1(a), (b) Protection from Harassment Act 11 2 1 4 Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions 12 2 1 5 Discussion 15 2 2 Defamation: Libel 16 2 2 1 Test for Defamation 17 2 2 2 Cairns v Modi 19 2 2 3 Lord McAlpine v Sally Bercow 20 2 3 Discussion 21 3 Conflicting Rights 22 3 1 Freedom of Speech 22 3 2 Trolling and Freedom of Speech 24 3 3 The Goal of Punishing Defamation and Trolling and Effectiveness 25 3 3 1 Defamation 25 3 3 2 Trolling 27 2 3 4 Non-legal repercussions 28 4 Discussion of Possible Solutions and Problems 30 4 1 Jurisdiction 30 4 2 Intervention by the Social Media Networks 31 4 3 Real Name Use 33 4 4 Education 34 4 5 Self-regulation 35 4 6 Summary 36 5 Conclusion 37 Bibliography 39 3 1 Introduction 1 1 What is the problem? Social media is currently one of the most used forms of expression and communication. Users post and comment opinions and statements from behind a computer screen and this often creates a feeling of distancing from their actions. The paper will deal with two forms of conduct that can lead to liability for a social media user. The acts are called trolling and defamation of character. Trolling is the act of insulting or harassing other users on social media and defamation is the act where a person makes a statement which harms the reputation of another person. The two terms will be explained and defined in part two of the paper Social media creates the problem that users often feel distanced from their actions when placing content online. The content, though mostly harmless, can and have had serious repercussions for the users who shared the content online. Some users may feel distanced from the individuals they target on social media, through trolling, and they make statements that they might know is wrong but feel that they can make this statement because of the distancing the internet creates. In the case of defamation it is the fact that users often do not realise that what they say could be interpreted as defamatory or that they do not think of the repercussions until it is too late. This could become a problem for society at large since users of social media might break the law or create legal repercussions for themselves without understanding that what they are doing is against the law. The users are often also under the impression that for whatever reason the law cannot touch them because they cannot be held liable for what they write on the internet. The evidence from the courts though shows that users may potentially be held liable for the content that they place on the internet. The intention of this thesis is to examine real life case studies regarding social media conduct that have had real life legal and other implications for the persons involved. The paper will use three case studies to approach the questions regarding whether statements made on social media can lead to civil or criminal prosecution. The paper will also look at whether the current legal system is effective and what could be done to educate or protect the general public from such potential liability. The three case studies that will be discussed will be given a short introduction after which the research question and methodology will be made clear. The reason why the mentioned cases will be examined, is because they are illustrations of trolling and defamation on social media networks. 4 1 1 1 Case study 1 The first case study deals with the case of Mr Paul Chambers. Mr Chambers used Twitter to make a satirical post regarding Robin Hood Airport, in which he mock threatened to bomb the airport if it was not open at the time of his flight the following week. The airport had been closed because of snow and weather problems. Mr Chambers was arrested and fined in terms section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. The act makes it a criminal offence to send offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages over public electronic communications networks. The case was appealed by Mr Chambers and, on the 27th of July 2012, he was found not guilty of the offense since the message was not intended to be threatening.1 1 1 2 Case Study 2 The second case deals with the incident of Brenda Leyland, a 63 year old woman, who sent Twitter messages to the Twitter account of the McCann family. The McCann family are well known in the UK because of the high profile case where their daughter had disappeared eight years ago. A reporter for Sky News had received information about the woman, from a source in Scotland Yard, because she had been investigated along with a number of other individuals who had sent threatening or rude “tweets” to the McCann’s. The reporter from Sky News went to Ms Leyland’s house and approached her on the street. The reporter made it clear that the authorities were aware of her and questioned why she was sending the offensive “tweets” to the McCann family. Three days after the confrontation Ms Leyland was found dead, she had committed suicide.2 1 1 3 Case Study 3 The third case deals with Lord McAlpine, a British politician, who was “named” on Twitter by many people as being the unnamed politician who was under investigation for a child sex abuse scandal in the UK. McAlpine decided to institute lilbel action (the written word version of Defamation) against Twitter users who stated that he is, or might be, the politician involved in the child sex abuse investigation. Lord McAlpine sued a number of individuals on Twitter including Sally Bercow, the wife of another UK politician. The British High Court ruled that the “tweets”, referring to Lord McAlpine as being the suspect in the 1 Paul Chambers v Director of Public Prosecutions [2012] EWHC 2157 2 Jennifer Smith “Sky TV reporter ‘devastated’ by suicide of McCann Twitter troll days after he exposed her, inquest hears” (20-03-02015) Dailymail <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3004290/Sky-TV- reporter-devastated-suicide-McCann-Twitter-troll-days-exposed-inquest-hears.html> (accessed 24-06- 2016) Anonymous “McCann ‘Twitter troll’ Brenda Leyland ‘killed herself’” (20-03-2015) BBC News <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-31982088> (accessed 24-06-2016) 5 investigation were defamatory, a libel, and thus found that Mrs Bercow had defamed Lord McAlpine.3 1 2 Why is this relevant? These three cases illustrate how the use of social media can create un-intended consequences for the users of social media. This paper will look at how the UK has dealt with cases where social media caused real life legal or other consequences for its users. The reason why the UK will be examined is because the UK has already had legislation in place that could be used against those who abuse social media and there has been a number of cases that have gone through the courts. There have been enough court cases to illustrate how the situation is to be dealt with and enough high profile cases that have been reported on. The use of social media since it has become the new norm with, for instance, platforms such as Facebook alone having more than 1 billion users4. Twitter has even been used by a United States Presidential candidate to announce their candidacy on Twitter.5 It is clearly a very topical issue that should to be examined. Social media has led to the creation of many new social and legal avenues that could become problematic. From the new form of vigilantism on Facebook or Twitter, to making jokes that can get one arrested. The reason one has to consider the consequences of the inappropriate use of social media is the fact that for the foreseeable future, social media is here to stay. It is used by millions around the world and as such can and has had a considerable impact on the daily lives of the general public. This means that one cannot avoid looking at some of the possible negative consequences that can come from the use of social media. Because it is used by an ever growing part of the world’s population, there will and have been situations where people have acted in a way that is socially and sometimes legally unacceptable. The general public need to be aware of these potential consequences. Thus one must find a way to educate the public to understand what is acceptable, and what is not, on social media and to understand that there can be consequences to their actions on the internet. One of the primary problems with social media is the fact that many users do not see it as a public forum and that users do not realise how easily something can go viral.
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]
  • 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
    [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]