Richard Wilson: ‘No one knows how many secret super-injunctions are currently in force’

Richard Wilson, author of Don’t Get Fooled and central blogger in the Trafigura/Guardian/Carter-Ruck episode, reports back from a meeting of the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights which focused on ’super-injunctions’.

Wilson, along with journalists, editors, MPs, Lords and lawyers (including two senior partners from Carter-Ruck) took part:

“[N]o one knows how many secret super-injunctions are currently in force. While the UK state seems bent on meticulously recording every detail of its citizens phone, email and web-browsing habits, it is positively lackadaisical about tracking its own media gagging orders. While each individual super-injunction is (we have to hope) being kept on file somewhere by the judiciary, no-one, anywhere, is collating information about the overall picture.”

Full story at this link…

Similar posts:

• MediaGuardian: MPs’ super injunction debate to go ahead on Wednesday
• ‘Firms like Carter-Ruck have become expert at pressing certain legal buttons,’ says David Leigh
• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on Trafigura’s ‘own goal’
• ‘Super injunctions’ parliamentary debate: kicks off 2.30 pm
• Carter-Ruck abandons attempt to gag Guardian on Trafigura question

Big Brother Watch: How an investigative journalist lost his job because of the UK’s libel system

Fascinating post from journalist Willard Foxton, until recently in charge of investigative title Chambers Report, on how the threat of libel caused him to lose his job.

Foxton ran a story on a Middle East branch of a British law firm, whose expansion had gone ‘catastrophically’ wrong. Despite countless interviews, multiple sources and an acceptance of truth from the firm, the title was still issued with a writ by the individual at the centre of the story – the only person Foxton had not asked if it was true (as part of the Reynolds defence) for fear of an injunction against publication.

“[I]n this case, the evidence was so strong (right down to senior people referring off the record to this individual as ‘the worst person we have ever hired’), I felt totally confident that we were safe,” writes Foxton.

“I was wrong. Really, really quite wrong.”

The cost of defending the legal action – and the potential cost of losing – were too much for the publisher: the magazine was closed and Foxton fired.

“It’s not just the publisher who could get sued either – because of the state of our libel laws, our distributors, our internet host, everyone even connected to us or the toxic-but-true article could be sued.

“He [my employer] sat me down in his office, told me he respected me as a journalist – respected me so much, in fact that he wants me to keep writing for his publishing firm – but said that libel scared him far too much to take risks.

“So there you go. A rich man in the emirates launches a libel writ against a UK publication for writing true things, and the publication gets shut down. I lost my job; the journalist who wrote the story received a written warning about his conduct. Why? Because we uncovered and exposed the truth.”

Full post at this link…

Similar posts:

• Libel, privacy, the ‘chilling effect’ and NGOs
• OUT-LAW.com: Google not liable for defamation in snippets, rules Eady
• Afghanistan in the media: ‘The Good War?’ Public meeting – July 13
• Editor&Publisher: Tribune Co. outsourcing not finalised, says reporter on blog
• Innovations in Journalism – AccessInterviews.com

HTFP: Newsquest wins court ruling in defence of user-generated content

A court ruling obtained by UK regional newspaper group Newsquest could have a significant impact on the issue of what protection publishers have in legal cases based on user-generated content on their sites.

In a defamation action, Newsquest had been sued by a solicitor Imran Karim following a report that he had been struck off by the Law Society.

The story attracted a range of comments, both in support and critical of Karim, which were removed by Newsquest as soon as the legal claim from Karim was received.

“Mr Justice Eady concluded that Newsquest websites were acting as hosts of the reader comments for the purposes of Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and therefore would not be liable for any damages even if the material was unlawful,” reports HoldtheFrontPage.co.uk.

“He said Newsquest had fulfilled the conditions for protection under Regulation 19, namely that the comments had been posted directly to the sites by third-party contributors without intervention by Newsquest, and that they had acted expeditiously to remove access to the material.”

Full story at this link…

Similar posts:

• Newsquest attracts 4.8m unique users in 2007
• Ofcom: where does it stand on internet regulation?
• Editor&Publisher: Newspaper editors still not sure how to police social media
• BeatBlogging.Org: Editors are not liable for changing comments
• paidContent UK: Government considers plans to remove ugc sites

EPUK: Photographer wins copyright infringement case against Mirror Group Newspapers

Photography site EPUK publishes a report by law firm Swan Turton on a celebrity photographer’s copyright victory over Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

“In a judgment issued on October 16 which has potentially important ramifications for the photography industry, the High Court held that Daily Mirror publisher MGN Ltd had infringed copyright in photographs included in back copies of newspapers it was making available online to paid subscribers.”

Full post at this link…

Similar posts:

• Belgian newspaper group to take European Commission to court again after its first challenge over news aggregator fails
• FT.com: Birmingham Post ‘might cease daily publication’
• Twitter injunction: ‘No such thing as unfettered freedom of speech’ says right-wing blogger
• Guardian: Mirror Group websites join ABCe
• Editor&Publisher: Different owners but shared content – two US newspapers pool resources

Independent.co.uk: Government plans for secret inquests

“Plans to introduce secret inquiries into controversial deaths from which the public and bereaved families could be banned are to be pushed through the House of Commons by the Government,” reports the Independent.

“Last night ministers suffered a humiliating defeat for the proposals in the House of Lords, but insisted that they were ‘clear’ that ‘harmful material’ must not be made public, and would reintroduce the measures in the Commons.”

Full story at this link…

Similar posts:

• House of Lords takes to YouTube
• Press Gazette: UK government to cut 30-year rule on records
• paidContent UK: Government considers plans to remove ugc sites
• Prizewinning journalism students: what do they do next?
• MediaGuardian: BBC local video plans ‘very damaging’ says, Newspaper Society

Guardian.co.uk: Government to convene senior politicians summit to ‘reinforce’ freedom of the press

The Guardian reports on yesterday’s parliamentary debate on the effect of libel law on reporting Parliament:

“[Justice minister Bridget Prentice] announced that the government would convene a summit of senior politicians to discuss ways to ‘reinforce’ the freedom of the press in reporting parliament and the historic principle of parliamentary privilege.”

(…)

“In the debate today MPs from all parties criticised the issuing ’super-injunctions’ against the press and their concerns were echoed by Prentice: ‘We are very concerned that they are being used more commonly and particularly in the area of libel and privacy, and the secretary of state for justice [Jack Straw] has already asked senior officials in the department to discuss that matter with lawyers from the newspapers and we are involving the judiciary in a consultation too.’”

• Guardian report at this link…

• The Guardian also live-blogged the event at this link.

Similar posts:

• Trafigura update: Jack Straw to examine use of ’super injunctions’
• ‘Super injunctions’ parliamentary debate: kicks off 2.30 pm
• Carter-Ruck abandons attempt to gag Guardian on Trafigura question
• High Court does not collect statistics on ’super injunctions’
• ‘Firms like Carter-Ruck have become expert at pressing certain legal buttons,’ says David Leigh

Trafigura dumped as art prize sponsor following ‘recent events’

As noted by Richard Wilson, author of Don’t Get Fooled Again, and one of the bloggers to first publish MP Paul Farrelly’s secret injunction question on his blog, Trafigura – the third largest independent oil trader in the world – has been dropped as a sponsor of what was formerly the Trafigura Art Prize.

Cynthia Corbett’s art prize will no longer be sponsored by Trafigura, and will instead be renamed the Young Masters Art Prize, a release from the gallery stated.

“Since the prize was conceived two years ago we approached various art foundations and corporate organizations to sponsor an art prize. We feel that the recent events involving Trafigura are detracting from the main purpose of the prize, which is to celebrate emerging and newly established artists,” said Corbett.

Sixteen international artists are currently exhibiting work at the Young Masters exhibition, which opened at The Old Truman Brewery last week (the day before Trafigura dropped its injunction against the Guardian) with over 1200 visitors. The prize will seek funding for the prize money from alternative sponsors in future years; this year the prize will be non-monetary, the release stated.

Richard Wilson is currently hosting the ‘Alternative Trafigura Art Prize’.

For the latest on the Guardian-Trafigura-Carter-Ruck injunction triangle, see Journalism.co.uk stories at this link.

Similar posts:

• Richard Wilson: ‘No one knows how many secret super-injunctions are currently in force’
• ‘Super injunctions’ parliamentary debate: kicks off 2.30 pm
• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on Trafigura’s ‘own goal’
• Trafigura update: Jack Straw to examine use of ’super injunctions’
• Paul Foot’s stories were not tomorrow’s fish and chip paper

‘Super injunctions’ parliamentary debate: kicks off 2.30 pm

The effects of English libel law on the reporting of parliamentary proceedings will be debated in the House of Commons today at 14.30 pm.

You can watch it here at this link…

Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris secured the debate, following the legal row between the Guardian and Trafigura’s lawyers, Carter-Ruck.

Although a ’super-injunction’ that stopped the Guardian reporting – or mentioning – the suppressed Minton Report was eventually lifted, it had prevented the Guardian reporting an MP’s question tabled for Parliament.

Carter-Ruck twice issued letters to the House, in regards to the case: firstly in response to media reports on how the firm was trying to ‘gag’ Parliament; secondly, indicating that the case could be ’sub judice‘. On Friday Carter-Ruck abandoned its injunction and on Saturday the Guardian reported the draft report that Trafigura had battled so hard to keep secret. On Sunday Guardian.co.uk reported that the MPs’ debate would go ahead.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger has dissected the injunction here for us on Guardian.co.uk although the document had already been made available by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) prior to the injunction being lifted.

The Times had also been issued with the same injunction, Wikileaks reported.

See:

• Journalism.co.uk: Trafigura and the Minton Report: ‘Super injunction’ was lifted after the horse had bolted
• Journalism.co.uk Trafigura/Guardian coverage at this link

Similar posts:

• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on Trafigura’s ‘own goal’
• Malcolm Coles: Carter Ruck’s new attempt to gag Parliament
• Carter-Ruck abandons attempt to gag Guardian on Trafigura question
• Trafigura update: Jack Straw to examine use of ’super injunctions’
• MediaGuardian: MPs’ super injunction debate to go ahead on Wednesday

Papua New Guineans now suing for $45m in Jared Diamond/New Yorker case

Remember the Papua New Guineans suing Jared Diamond and the New Yorker for $10 million in damages? Background at this link.

Damages have been raised from $10 million to $45 million.

Last week, attourneys for Diamond and Advance Publications filed their answer to the lawsuit in New York state court, denying all of the defamation allegations.

The court trial date is yet to be set.

Full Science Magazine post at this link…

Also at Gawker.com / Forbes.com

Similar posts:

• Journalistic issues raised by the Jared Diamond case
• The $10m lawsuit against the New Yorker – Papua New Guineans challenge Jared Diamond article
• BBC News: Italian media group suing Berlusconi for defamation
• Carter Ruck release: Mail on Sunday apologises to MP over Dale story
• MediaGuardian: Express owner Richard Desmond loses libel case

Press Gazette: Tennis player suing over ‘world’s worst’ claim

On Press Gazette, PA Mediapoint reports that ‘lawyers for the tennis player suing the Daily Telegraph after it described him as being ‘ranked as the worst professional tennis player in the world’ have estimated that legal costs for the case could run to £500,000′.

“Robert Dee is suing the newspaper for defamation over an article which appeared on its front page on April 23, 2008, under the headline: ‘World’s worst tennis pro wins at last.’”

Full story at this link….

Similar posts:

• BBC News: Italian media group suing Berlusconi for defamation
• VisualEditors: Rocky Mountain News goes retro with final front page
• HuffPo doesn’t like being linked to… really?
• Game, set and… hack – Bulgaria prepares for journalists’ tennis championships
• How the news sites are treating the phone tapping story