Is Section 40....

[opel80uk]

....... Good? Bad? Reasonable? Restrictive?

What are Hexites thoughts?

[BobF64]

The "news" thing?

Its implementation looks like a knee jerk response to "celebs" and MPs worried about the public discovering their inadequacies.

What kind of bonkers mental idea is it that a publisher pays the all the costs if they win?

The sole purpose of that is to force all publishers to join the government censorship scheme.

[ik9000]

qe? section 40 what?

[peterb]

A friend of mine (not a celeb) was splashed over the front page of a newspaper after an indiscrete photo was leaked by a vengeful spouse. It wasn't in the public interest, it was an invasion of privacy, but they didn't have the wherewithal to even consider bringing any complaint.

its the same old coin, rights and responsibilities - the press want the right to be free, but don't accept the responsibilities that go with it. The real knee jerk reactions by celebs are the super injunctions.

The other question is whether celebs should have the same right to privacy as everyone else - given that many shamelessly exploit the press for their own advancement, but then cry foul when the same press turns on them.

Or is the real problem the consumers of salacious material - publishing what is of interest to the public is not the same as publishing material in the public interest.

Hugh Grant wrote a good article in The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lation-justice

[opel80uk]

qe? section 40 what?

Sorry, I should have expanded the opening post. Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is legislation which seems to, depending on your viewpoint, restrict freedom of the press, or brings about a much needed tightening of the self regulation of the press.

My issue with the whole 'freedom of press' battle cry is this; if the press were serious about the much valued freedom of press that we enjoy in the UK, then they wouldn't have systematically undermined it with their behaviour, such as the hacking issue. That said, it is a very fine line between ensuring we keep press freedoms, whilst ensuring (and enforcing) that the press adhere to their own code of conduct. I think, for me and from what I understand of it, Section 40 seems to have got it just about right.

What kind of bonkers mental idea is it that a publisher pays the all the costs if they win?

Well, they only pay if they don't agree to the arbitration process. And your sentence above only focuses on the publisher; what about people that the publisher libels but doesn't have the means to contest in court. Where is their recourse? At the moment it is only through self regulation via IPSO, and we know that self regulation of the press has failed at almost every turn.
Equally, how many times have the press sat on a story about very wealthy individuals, frightened to publish a story in the public interest that they believe to be true, in case they lose in court against them? As it stands a huge influencing factor in whether a story is published in the first place, and recourse if that story is untrue, seems to depend on the respective bank balances of those involved. Is that right considering a) how important the press is in informing us of genuine public interest stories (I.e the expenses scandal) and b) those who are wronged by the press getting recourse, irrespective of the wealth?

A friend of mine (not a celeb) was splashed over the front page of a newspaper after an indiscrete photo was leaked by a vengeful spouse. It wasn't in the public interest, it was an invasion of privacy, but they didn't have the wherewithal to even consider bringing any complaint.

Do you mind me asking, without naming any names or anything like that, how a non celebrity ended up on the front page of a newspaper because of an indiscrete photo? How is that in anyway in the public interest?!

[Ttaskmaster]

I hate paparazzos, journalists and media types in general - So much is speculation and leading narrative, often without actually saying anything, to the point where the whole Brexit thing became a political battle between news sources, which led to the government doing the same thing and un/mis-informing people.
It's now at the point where not reading the news makes you uninformed, but whichever source(s) you favour leaves you misinformed. You can't win.

Then there's the whole Trial By Media thing which, even if the person is completely exonnerated, leaves them forever branded. All it takes is one mention of that person as a possible murderer/rapist/paedo/tax-dodger and their life is potentially over because of that, because people will believe it and retractions/apologies are never front page news.
The media are supposed to inform people, not mislead them and keep them as dumb sheeple.

Slam them, I say.
From my biassed and misinformed perspective based on what Mr Hugh Grant has to say, I think Section 40 is a fantastic idea.

[SeriousSam]

The question of balancing rights against responsibilities is one that affects all facets of society, not just freedom of the press. In recent times the pendulum has swung far to far towards rights and away from the commensurate responsibilities. This has been driven in part by the ideological perception that such rights are inviolate, which is entirely erroneous. Putting such ideas on the same intellectual footing as say fundamental laws of the universe is nonsense. Rights are intersubjective concepts we have invented in order to better facilitate the efficient functioning of society. That we have got into such a pickle is hardly surprising given that the majority bend reality to suit their perception, rather than adjusting their perception to fit reality. Hardly anyone is willing to accept the fact that our society is falling apart because we ALL had a hand in making that way.

In regards to freedom of the press, this extends further into the freedom of speech and the nature of just not traditional media but also social media. There is no point in having control systems for the former if that latter is not also regulated. The amount of lies and misinformation that is spread virally across platforms such as Facebook and twitter is staggering. Now there is an argument to be made that media should be placed under greater regulation due to the money involved. However, that misses a key point. The primary question is the amount of "damage" that is done by propagating a deceitful narrative. Yes we need better press regulation, but focussing solely on that is like bolting your door and then leaving a window open...

[opel80uk]

I hate paparazzos, journalists and media types in general - So much is speculation and leading narrative, often without actually saying anything, to the point where the whole Brexit thing became a political battle between news sources, which led to the government doing the same thing and un/mis-informing people.
It's now at the point where not reading the news makes you uninformed, but whichever source(s) you favour leaves you misinformed. You can't win.

Then there's the whole Trial By Media thing which, even if the person is completely exonnerated, leaves them forever branded. All it takes is one mention of that person as a possible murderer/rapist/paedo/tax-dodger and their life is potentially over because of that, because people will believe it and retractions/apologies are never front page news.
The media are supposed to inform people, not mislead them and keep them as dumb sheeple.

Slam them, I say.
From my biassed and misinformed perspective based on what Mr Hugh Grant has to say, I think Section 40 is a fantastic idea.

I understand where you are coming from, but were it not for the press, we may never have found out about the MP's expenses scandal.....

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I understand where you are coming from, but were it not for the press, we may never have found out about the MP's expenses scandal.....

It was not the press who found it out though??

[Ttaskmaster]

Now there is an argument to be made that media should be placed under greater regulation due to the money involved. However, that misses a key point. The primary question is the amount of "damage" that is done by propagating a deceitful narrative. Yes we need better press regulation, but focussing solely on that is like bolting your door and then leaving a window open...

It's about how widespread the press damage can be and how ordinary people lack the resources to challenge their accusers, whereas many people are capable of going to the liars on Farcebook and fighting the case their own selves.

I understand where you are coming from, but were it not for the press, we may never have found out about the MP's expenses scandal.....

Aside from a couple of harrumphs here and there, did anyone actually care about that?
Did anyone actually do anything about that?
Is it still going on, albeit in plain sight, because no-one really cares and they know it?
Have the MPs actually challenged the press, maybe taken them to court for their lies... or is that the very truth they're supposed to be reporting on instead of making things up when they don't know for sure?

[SeriousSam]

It's about how widespread the press damage can be and how ordinary people lack the resources to challenge their accusers, whereas many people are capable of going to the liars on Farcebook and fighting the case their own selves.

I'm talking about the total quantity of damage inflicted, not the individual case level of damage or the ability to fight your own corner. A meme on social media can reach a much larger audience and a rate no traditional media outlet can match*. They are also much more easily "digestible" than an article in a paper etc. It's the difference between Hastur and Ligur tempting individual souls and Crowley tying up a telephone exchange...

* unless someone retweets them for example

[Ttaskmaster]

A meme on social media can reach a much larger audience and a rate no traditional media outlet can match*. They are also much more easily "digestible" than an article in a paper etc.

A meme is also a jokey gif or image usually made up by some kid on a home computer.
It doesn't exactly carry the same gravity or authority that an official news report in an proper paper/news channel does when it brands someone as a (possible) kiddie-fiddler, or when it describes how a woman, 29 from Barnsley, died in agonizing pain after eating a Sainsbury's yoghurt... (several days after).

[opel80uk]

Putting such ideas on the same intellectual footing as say fundamental laws of the universe is nonsense.

Who does that though? Who seriously thinks Freedom of the press is akin to the the laws of physics? One is a pillar of Western Democracy, which in turn is a system that can change in a (relative) blink of an eye, whereas the other just is

In regards to freedom of the press, this extends further into the freedom of speech and the nature of just not traditional media but also social media. There is no point in having control systems for the former if that latter is not also regulated. The amount of lies and misinformation that is spread virally across platforms such as Facebook and twitter is staggering. Now there is an argument to be made that media should be placed under greater regulation due to the money involved. However, that misses a key point. The primary question is the amount of "damage" that is done by propagating a deceitful narrative. Yes we need better press regulation, but focussing solely on that is like bolting your door and then leaving a window open...

Agreed, but the rules around social media need to be different from the rules for the press, because the mediums are different. There is also an argument to be made that perhaps, given the scope, vastness and importantly, often anonymity of social media it is simply not feasible to regulate it - does that mean therefore we should give the idea of regulating media where we can? I don't think so.

It was not the press who found it out though??

True, but it was the press that were able to publish the information given to Wick. Were it not for the Press (Telegraph), and the public pressure that ensued, the FoI requests vital for the story may well have been redacted or indeed, blocked from being released altogether. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the story wouldn't have come out anyway, but I don't think we should write out the role the Press played in it, and I say that as someone who, by and large, thinks the Press' standards are appalling.


And as for who cares, I think a lot of people did. And more importantly, aside from some MPs going to prison, as a direct result of that story you can bet your life it has help change the expenses culture in Parliament.

[SeriousSam]

opel80uk

1. In some respects it comes down to behaviour. If you ask someone whether the two are the same then they'd most likely say not. However, when they then defend freedom of speech etc. with an almost religious fervour then this indicates that on some level they perceive them similarly. Essentially they believe it is a fact rather than the reality of it being intersubjective. People are not logically consistent by any stretch of the imagination.

2. I'm not using it as an argument to say we shouldn't regulate traditional media, as we should and to a far greater degree than even outlined by Leveson. More that thinking this will solve the issue is short-sighted. The regulations applied may need to be different but some of the underlying principles will be the same. It doesn't matter whether it is an organisation or an individual. Despite the current espousal of us living in a post truth world the reality is that we never even reached truth and are actually heading in the wrong direction. A large part of this comes down to individual behaviour as part of collective networks on the internet.


Ttaskmaster

I was talking more about the images etc. that get distributed which link two facts with a lie in order to create a false narrative. Fluorine being put into water to pacify the population being a classic example. Though perhaps meme was the wrong word, it was just the one that came to mind.

[Ttaskmaster]

as a direct result of that story you can bet your life it has help change the expenses culture in Parliament.

Well I already bet my taxes on it...
Didn't hear about anyone going to prison, never mind how they were mostly released mere months after 1-2 year sentences, either...

But if freedom of the press is the big thing, then there must also be a viable system by which they can be brought to account by even the smallest person, too. Too often it's financially impossible to even challenge them.

[opel80uk]

opel80uk

1. In some respects it comes down to behaviour. If you ask someone whether the two are the same then they'd most likely say not. However, when they then defend freedom of speech etc. with an almost religious fervour then this indicates that on some level they perceive them similarly.

I get your point, but I'm not sure I'd agree with your analysis. Like any subjective topic, you would have a wide spectrum of views expressed and of those who 'religiously' defend their position, i.e Freedom of Press, I imagine they do so because they truly believe that it is important for society (as do I, incidentally), not because they believe it is a fact, or an undeniable right. And on this particular issue, in my experience the most zealous defenders of the Freedom of the Press tend to be, understandably, the biggest stakeholders in it; The Press themselves.

2. I'm not using it as an argument to say we shouldn't regulate traditional media, as we should and to a far greater degree than even outlined by Leveson. More that thinking this will solve the issue is short-sighted. The regulations applied may need to be different but some of the underlying principles will be the same. It doesn't matter whether it is an organisation or an individual. Despite the current espousal of us living in a post truth world the reality is that we never even reached truth and are actually heading in the wrong direction. A large part of this comes down to individual behaviour as part of collective networks on the internet.

Well it's not a cure-all, but then again I don't think anyone ever said or thought it would be. I think most, including Governments, realise the issues surrounding social media need to be looked at, and it almost certainly cannot continue as it has been, but the term 'press' is so all-encompassing that it would need to be done piecemeal and in stages rather then all at once. No one person I know who supports more press regulation thinks that this will solve the multi-faceted issues that surround the press, more that it is a small step in the right direction.