Gawker libel suit Its the end of the word as we know it

American wrestling in the shape of Hulk Hogan may seem an odd topic for an aspiring academic to get into (although hopefully doing a Media course and any half-decent degree will teach you that there is much to learn from the seemingly trivial), but here is what will become a classic example of abuse of libel laws.

The UK was used for libel tourism, the rich and powerful taking advantage of libel laws that were much too easy to use to silence the media (and/or to claim huge damages), with super injunctions (e.g. Guardian and Trafigura, and the Ryan Giggs cases) another much-abused libel tool showing how significant the wider law is.

You can't grasp media regulation by studying the formal regulators alone.

Here we have a case in which a vengeful venture capitalist funded a lawsuit by the wrestler which has caused Gawker (which once upset this VC) to go bust and be sold off. The case was lodged in Florida - where state law means that it doesn't matter if you appeal, you legally must pay up whatever damages the initial judge sets immediately, a variation on the once rampant UK libel tourism.

Read more here.

On a lighter note (though you could decipher the semiotics of the Aryan figure...),

"Whatcha gonna do, brother? Whatcha gonna do when Hulkamania runs wild on you?"

WIDER ISSUES: Privacy

This is a topic I've frequently blogged on - use the tag cloud to find previous posts.

There are two ways to view the issue of privacy as it applies to media law and regulation:

1. There should be tougher, tighter restrictions on the media's ability to invade our privacy, as tabloid newspapers in particular persist in doing so on flimsy grounds
2. We urgently need to liberalise privacy law in favour of the media, as it is becoming increasingly difficult for UK media to publish information about the rich and powerful (those with access to expensive lawyers)

As ever, there are overlapping issues with digitisation:

• UK-only privacy regulation/law is made absurd by the easy access to global online resources
• As most of us permit websites and apps to track huge amounts of personal information about us, we increasingly undermine the argument that we have a right to privacy

There are cases from the press, TV and film that we can consider, but there is a further point we swiftly encounter, for example through the Max Mosley case:

• Media regulation of single industries makes no sense, and is ineffective, when there is so much cross-media ownership

UK government control of web: YouTube

The supposed free-for-all, uncontrollable nature of the web is used by media owners to argue for looser regulation: why should their business be stymied by regulations which web operations can ignore? This line of argument was made frequently when the super-injunctions, especially that over Ryan Giggs, were leading the headlines in 2011: Twitter users galore were naming Giggs but papers and TV were legally prevented from doing so. (Since then, of course, there have been a number of cases of Twitter users being jailed, one example being for racial abuse of footballers)

The idea that the web is free from government control is something of a myth however; you can click through either of the following for examples of stories about how our current government has managed to get YouTube to delete a range of videos that would be politically embarassing - I wonder what John Prescott (who just this week argued that the likes of Twitter have ushered in a golden age of citizen freedom, of freedom of expression) would make of this?

If the bloggers below are correct, is this any better than China, where the 'great firewall of China' sees web use strictly censored by a huge bureaucracy?

[source for below: http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/leveson-pressreform-tory-demand-u-tube.html]

In a frightening example of how the state is tightening its grip around the free Internet, it has emerged that You Tube is complying with thousands of requests from governments to censor and remove videos that show protests and other examples of citizens simply asserting their rights, while also deleting search terms by government mandate.....read more

http://theintelhub.com/2011/05/20/government-orders-you-tube-to-censor-protest-videos/

Cameron told GOOGLE to block search items on the Internet

http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/leveson-pressreform-government-ask.html

Cameron ordered armed police to threaten nurses and doctors during a NHS demonstration so he could pass the bill. Cameron censored the entire evenings events.

http://themurdochempireanditsnestofvipers.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/leveson-pressreform-cameron-ordered.html

PCC and OfCom to be reviewed

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/09/jeremy-hunt-ken-clarke-privacy-committee
Jeremy Hunt and Ken Clarke set out remit for privacy committee

MPs and peers given broad remit to recommend legal changes or guidance to judges, as well as look at role of Twitter

• • Share 
  • 
  • 

• Dan Sabbagh
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 June 2011 12.45 BST
• Article history

The Commons privacy committee was set up at the height of the furore over Ryan Giggs's alleged affair. Photograph: Michael Regan/Getty Images

The culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, have asked parliament to examine whether the law and the courts have established an appropriate balance between the rights to privacy and freedom of expression in the wake of the celebrity injunction crisis.
The two ministers have agreed on terms of reference for the committee of MPs and peers – and want parliament to see how "issues relating to determining the balance between privacy and freedom of expression" could "best be decided".
That gives the committee a broad remit to make recommendations as to whether the law could be altered or whether new guidance could be given to judges to change the way they have been interpreting the Human Rights Act which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
David Cameron asked that the parliamentary committee be set up last month, at the height of the Ryan Giggs furore – in which the footballer tried and ultimately failed to prevent himself being publicly linked to Imogen Thomas, the former Big Brother contestant with whom he allegedly had an extra-marital relationship.
Parliament will also examine the role of Twitter – which was used widely to circulate Giggs's name in defiance of court orders – and whether it is appropriate for MPs to use parliamentary privilege to name individuals such as the Manchester United footballer to help get their names into the public domain.
The Press Complaints Commission will also come under scrutiny, as regards its role in "privacy matters", to see whether it has been at all effective in this area. Baroness Buscombe, who chairs the PCC, has claimed it would have stopped the Sun from publishing the original Giggs story without the need to go to law.
The exact membership of the committee is currently being hammered out by the whips' offices of the three main parties – and the body is expected to begin its inquiry later this month. Those expecting to become members have indicated they expect to call a wide range of witnesses including Paul Dacre and other newspaper editors, executives from Twitter and Google, as well as senior judges.

The full terms of reference

To consider the operation of the current law in relation to privacy and the use of anonymity injunctions and superinjunctions and to advise the government on any improvements that should be made.
In particular, to consider:
• How the current law, both statutory and common, has operated in practice.
• How issues relating to determining the balance between privacy and freedom of expression, including particularly determining whether there is a public interest in material concerning peoples private and family life, could best be decided.
• Issues relating to the enforcement of anonymity injunctions and superinjunctions, including in relation to publication on the internet, parliamentary privilege and the rule of law.
• The role of the press and issues relating to press complaints and self-regulation in the context of privacy matters, including the role of the Press Complaints Commission and Ofcom.