Have a Good NEWS

Publication of research

Leveson could damage if you can not distinguish between intruders journalist and tell their life stories

hope that Lord Justice Leveson makes the most of your break to dive into the standard release. Tribe tweeters that have been transcribed almost every word of questioning certainly deserve a break. Perhaps Leveson knows some of the best sellers of the season with mince pies - which would make a change in the type of tabloid journalism that led to their investigation. But there is a real danger that the recommendations Leveson to support "the integrity and freedom of the press while promoting the highest ethical standards" will have unforeseen consequences for the publication, to strike another blow to an industry already state of siege.

The Leveson concludes on the future of media regulation, which will certainly recommend changes to the Act on the Protection of personal information. It heard testimony striking intrusive practices in the newspaper industry. Existing laws in this area are inconsistent and unevenly applied, failing to prevent invasions of privacy, but the grotesque assault investigative journalism. I agree that we need to make some changes - and it makes sense to do this in the context of a statutory privacy law that clearly states the rights and wrongs on the subject. But if this spoils Leveson, leaves us with a solution that works for a small group of investigative journalists, but causes serious problems for new authors and publishers.

Why? For starters, the law in this country is notoriously bad at distinguishing between different types of editor. Look for defamation. A law (through the Reynolds defense) to criminalize defamation, while protecting investigative journalism, did the opposite. The law of defamation has not stopped newspapers from the burrs McCann and Christopher Jefferies - but silenced scientists, academics, biographers and even novelists. According to the Publishers Association, 60% of publishers have avoided the production of books on people and companies who have sued for defamation. If Leveson creates a new privacy law to cut and paste of our law of defamation in progress, which can make life more difficult for book publishers.

Although one might object to ex-lover of the family or the publication of their faces an account of our shared past. But that holds memory? All life depends on drawing in whole or in part of our subjective memory of things that happened in private. Do we really want the courts to prevent us from spilling the beans in our own lives? Constance Briscoe's mother sued for defamation by publishing an account of his miserable childhood. The trial was defeated - but could have been a different story if it had continued on the basis of privacy. Briscoe memories, no doubt, to invade the privacy of your mother, so that, legally, the truth is no defense.

Find best price for : --Jonathan----Justice----Lord----Leveson--