Monday, December 26, 2011

Libel reform: juries should be dropped for most trials, says committee

5:14 PM | Posted by Free Game Zone | | Edit Post

Parliamentary Group supports measures to stop the defamation line and make it more difficult for corporations to continue the newspaper

libel the jury should be abolished in all cases, but outstanding public figures, a parliamentary committee has recommended.

The Lords and Commons

joint Committee on the Defamation Bill proposed project of radical changes in the libel laws in the UK, including new measures to curb online defamation and proposals make it more difficult for large companies to pursue the newspapers.

MPs and peers recommended the fight against the culture of anonymous comments online with a new notice and removal procedure, suggesting that the unidentified commentators on blogs and social networks like Facebook Twitter and allegedly defamatory material must be removed by the host or Internet service providers if they refuse to reveal their identity.

The report also proposes the replacement of the "defense of Reynolds" qualified privilege for responsible journalism in the public interest with a new legal defense.

Lord Mawhinney, Chairman of the Joint Committee, said the current libel laws are "too expensive, it is a barrier to all but the richest."

He added: "Our recommendations should help to reduce dependence on expensive lawyers and the courts, bringing defamation in the reach of ordinary people who are needed to protect their reputation or defend their right to freedom of expression.

"They are based on firm principles, which I'm sure the government will support."

detailed recommendations were forwarded to the government and could become law next year.

report called for an end to trials for libel by the jury agreed with a proposal in the bill that the government announced in March.

is said that the vast majority of cases should be heard by a judge and a jury trial should be limited to cases of public life and senior "only when its public credibility is at stake."

The committee said that the abolition of jury trials assure trivial cases are removed before huge legal costs. The report recommends that online messages that are the subject of a complaint for defamation should be taken by the host - like Twitter and Facebook - unless the authors are willing to identify "or is there an overriding public interest in the publication. " "The Committee recommends amending the law to promote a cultural change so that, over time, the credibility of anonymous posts - and the damage they can do - is limited," said Report

  • When the author of the defamatory material online is identifiable, the web host will be forced to publish a notice of claim with the article. If the host, which could include Google's Blogger or WordPress site, refuses to, could be prosecuted in the same manner as a newspaper or magazine, the report recommends.
  • "If the Internet service provider believes that it is substantial public interest justifying the rejection of non-identified - for example, if a complainant is the source - which must have the right to ask a judge for a waiver of the removal procedure and to ensure the order of "let-up," the report said.
"We do not host or service provider should be responsible for anonymous document, provided they meet the above requirements."

MPs and peers also make it more difficult for large companies to continue to have publishers to show a judge to have suffered "substantial damage" by the financial publication.



Find best price for : --MediaGuardian----Reynolds--

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

Blogger Template created with Artisteer.