Press Freedom under threat

[rynner2]

If there's better place for this story, Mods, please shift it.
YOUR newspaper needs your help NOW!
A message to readers from Packet editor Paul Armstrong

Imagine, for a moment, life without the Packet. Even if you are not a weekly purchaser of the printed newspaper, you – or someone you know or are close to – will almost certainly be a regular reader of the news we produce and the information we provide on our website or via our Facebook pages.
But what if they ceased to exist?

If it wasn’t for our newspapers and the journalists who fill them, waste and inefficiency in public bodies, corruption and other crime might not be exposed.
Whistleblowers would have nowhere to go to reveal incompetence and wrong-doing in the local community and in local organisations.
There would be no-one to campaign on your behalf, to fight battles that you care about, to rally the community to raise vitally-needed funds for local charities and appeals.
That terrifying prospect is now a great deal closer than you might think.

Sadly, there are those who would be only too happy to see misbehaviour and the misuse of public funds go unreported by restricting the press and preventing us from exposing facts and information that some would prefer to keep secret.

There are already tough libel laws and strict regulations that the press must comply with to expose inequity and wrong-doing but now a new law threatens the very existence of local newspapers like the Packet.

An obscure piece of legislation could soon be used to impose crippling legal costs on newspapers and magazines in the wake of libel or privacy trials - even when what they print is the truth.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could force newspapers like the Packet to pay the costs incurred by both sides in a libel case even if the newspaper wins and is able to demonstrate in court that what it reported was accurate and publication was in the public interest.

In other words, the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know - two of the cornerstones of modern democracy - are both under threat.

The phone-hacking scandal prompted a wave of public anger against journalists - even though only a small number of national journalists were implicated.
Those journalists were dealt with in the criminal and civil courts.
But now, riding that wave of public anger, the Government is trying to force all newspapers to join Impress, a press regulator of its choice - one which was dreamt up by politicians, is backed by a Royal Charter and financed mainly by Max Mosley.

This flies in the face of the fundamental rights of the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, the public’s right to receive information, and the first principle of justice – that it should be fair.

The vast majority of newspapers - including the Packet- are already signed up to an independent regulator: IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The clue is in the name.

Forcing newspapers to sign up to a regulator approved by politicians would fundamentally alter the balance of power between a free press and those the press exists to scrutinise. Most newspapers refuse to do so, believing it would be a step towards state regulation and censorship. But if we don’t, the government is threatening to introduce a ‘costs order’ in Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.

That would mean that newspapers like the Packet which continued to refuse to sign up to the Government-approved regulator could then be forced to pay all the legal costs for both sides in any libel or privacy action, even when they won the court case.
This would have a chilling effect on newspapers’ ability to hold the powerful to account.

We wouldn’t dare to expose corruption or wrongdoing in public office, even when we could prove them, for fear of massive legal bills.

If you believe in these values, in your right to know, then I really must urge you to help by actively showing your support.
Please respond to the Government’s consultation on implementing Section 40 by writing to your MP, calling on the Government to step back from a draconian measure that would take us back to the dark ages of press censorship and stifle freedom of expression.

OR you can simply respond by visiting the website set up at freethepress.co.uk with a simple submission form you can quickly complete and press Send.

If you believe in freedom of speech, a free press and freedom from state interference in what you can read, PLEASE ACT NOW.
This is no idle threat – YOUR local newspaper really does need YOU.

http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/15001388.YOUR_newspaper_needs_your_help_NOW_/

URL for website mentioned: https://freethepress.co.uk/

 

[ramonmercado]

If there's better place for this story, Mods, please shift it.
YOUR newspaper needs your help NOW!
A message to readers from Packet editor Paul Armstrong

Imagine, for a moment, life without the Packet. Even if you are not a weekly purchaser of the printed newspaper, you – or someone you know or are close to – will almost certainly be a regular reader of the news we produce and the information we provide on our website or via our Facebook pages.
But what if they ceased to exist?

If it wasn’t for our newspapers and the journalists who fill them, waste and inefficiency in public bodies, corruption and other crime might not be exposed.
Whistleblowers would have nowhere to go to reveal incompetence and wrong-doing in the local community and in local organisations.
There would be no-one to campaign on your behalf, to fight battles that you care about, to rally the community to raise vitally-needed funds for local charities and appeals.
That terrifying prospect is now a great deal closer than you might think.

Sadly, there are those who would be only too happy to see misbehaviour and the misuse of public funds go unreported by restricting the press and preventing us from exposing facts and information that some would prefer to keep secret.

There are already tough libel laws and strict regulations that the press must comply with to expose inequity and wrong-doing but now a new law threatens the very existence of local newspapers like the Packet.

An obscure piece of legislation could soon be used to impose crippling legal costs on newspapers and magazines in the wake of libel or privacy trials - even when what they print is the truth.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could force newspapers like the Packet to pay the costs incurred by both sides in a libel case even if the newspaper wins and is able to demonstrate in court that what it reported was accurate and publication was in the public interest.

In other words, the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know - two of the cornerstones of modern democracy - are both under threat.

The phone-hacking scandal prompted a wave of public anger against journalists - even though only a small number of national journalists were implicated.
Those journalists were dealt with in the criminal and civil courts.
But now, riding that wave of public anger, the Government is trying to force all newspapers to join Impress, a press regulator of its choice - one which was dreamt up by politicians, is backed by a Royal Charter and financed mainly by Max Mosley.

This flies in the face of the fundamental rights of the freedom of the press, freedom of expression, the public’s right to receive information, and the first principle of justice – that it should be fair.

The vast majority of newspapers - including the Packet- are already signed up to an independent regulator: IPSO, the Independent Press Standards Organisation. The clue is in the name.

Forcing newspapers to sign up to a regulator approved by politicians would fundamentally alter the balance of power between a free press and those the press exists to scrutinise. Most newspapers refuse to do so, believing it would be a step towards state regulation and censorship. But if we don’t, the government is threatening to introduce a ‘costs order’ in Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act.

That would mean that newspapers like the Packet which continued to refuse to sign up to the Government-approved regulator could then be forced to pay all the legal costs for both sides in any libel or privacy action, even when they won the court case.
This would have a chilling effect on newspapers’ ability to hold the powerful to account.

We wouldn’t dare to expose corruption or wrongdoing in public office, even when we could prove them, for fear of massive legal bills.

If you believe in these values, in your right to know, then I really must urge you to help by actively showing your support.
Please respond to the Government’s consultation on implementing Section 40 by writing to your MP, calling on the Government to step back from a draconian measure that would take us back to the dark ages of press censorship and stifle freedom of expression.

OR you can simply respond by visiting the website set up at freethepress.co.uk with a simple submission form you can quickly complete and press Send.

If you believe in freedom of speech, a free press and freedom from state interference in what you can read, PLEASE ACT NOW.
This is no idle threat – YOUR local newspaper really does need YOU.

http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/15001388.YOUR_newspaper_needs_your_help_NOW_/

URL for website mentioned: https://freethepress.co.uk/

I tweeted both of those just now.

 

[Coal]

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act could force newspapers like the Packet to pay the costs incurred by both sides in a libel case even if the newspaper wins and is able to demonstrate in court that what it reported was accurate and publication was in the public interest.

In other words, the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know - two of the cornerstones of modern democracy - are both under threat.

Hm. While I don't want to see this, there's a case to be made that papers have rather had it their own way for some time.

As it stands at the moment, papers can print libellous things and private individuals without the (financial) means to fight protracted libel cases against newspapers get their name blackened without recourse to justice. On the rare occasions a libel is proved the front page accusations are generally withdrawn in small print inside the paper...leaving the victim publicly shamed.

A reform of the libel laws is required, not the muzzling of the press. Allowing the libelled man in the street the ability to fight libel cases against large organisations without financial penalty and the press in particular having to retract in the same place, space and typeface the libel was made, would really sort that out.

 

[rynner2]

Newspaper legal costs proposals wrong in principle, says senior MP
Culture committee chair Damian Collins condemns plans to make papers cover costs of legal disputes regardless of fault
Press Association
Saturday 7 January 2017 08.36 GMT

Plans to saddle newspapers with the cost of legal disputes regardless of fault are “wrong in principle” and could play into the hands of ambulance-chasing lawyers, the head of a parliamentary committee has said.
Damian Collins, chairman of the culture, media and sport committee, said the proposals should not be implemented as they risked harming freedom of the press – and thus democracy – while filling solicitors’ coffers.
The Conservative MP said press regulation was an important issue, but the greatest threat to the media’s credibility came from the rise of “fake news” on social media and elsewhere, rather than from newspapers.

In an article for the Daily Telegraph, he argued against the activation of section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act. Should the clause be introduced, judges in libel and privacy cases would have the power to order publications to pay a plaintiff’s legal costs, win or lose. A government consultation on the issue ends on Tuesday.

“It is hard to think of any other area of law where such a provision would be allowed,” Collins said. “Some have said that the risk of heavy costs being awarded against the newspapers is not as great as some fear. But I believe it is wrong in principle, and once established could create a new industry of ambulance-chasing lawyers encouraging people to hire them on no-win, no-fee terms to take up complaints against the press. These lawyers could set high fees and know that there would be a good chance of getting paid even if they lost the case.”

Collins said the ability of the press to hold those in power to account was “one of the cornerstones of our democracy”, and warned that the changes would have a chilling effect.


“The consequence would be to drive many newspapers out of business and to threaten the kind of investigative journalism that we so greatly value. Editors would understandably be concerned about the financial risk of causing embarrassment, even when they have a duty to report the truth,” he said.

Section 40 forms part of a range of reforms proposed by Sir Brian Leveson after his inquiry into the culture and practices of the press in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal. Any newspapers that do not sign up to a recognised regulator would be vulnerable to the costs provision, which has been enacted by parliament but requires the approval of the culture secretary, Karen Bradley.

She has said she wants to maintain a free press while giving victims of intrusion access to “cheap justice”. However, the law is seen by some as a blunt instrument designed to force newspapers to sign up to a regulator backed by royal charter, which MPs have the power to change.

Following the publication of Leveson’s report, a new regulator was created, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), which has the power to adjudicate against newspapers and issue fines of up to £1m.

Collins said the press had made “substantial progress” in reforming how it governed itself. However, he said the public needed to be made more aware of the existence of Ipso and the watchdog should roll out a low-cost means of arbitration.

Four years on from the Leveson report, the growing number of “fake news” reports online that spread misinformation and propaganda should be the focus for media monitors, the MP said.

“Press regulation is an important issue. But the greatest threat to the credibility of the media no longer emanates from newspapers. Instead it comes via the internet, where ‘fake news’ spreads without regulation through social media platforms and numerous other channels. That should be a greater concern for us now.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...s-proposals-wrong-in-principle-says-senior-mp