Suchergebnisse

AbstractWe are in an uncertain and complex period for data protection and privacy in Europe, and especially so in the UK, following the result of the 'Brexit' referendum on 23 June 2016. Information law, and data protection in particular, are of increasing concern for those in the business of knowledge sharing and information dissemination: media organizations, academic institutions and libraries. The notion of the 'right to be forgotten' is particularly troublesome, as lawyers, archivists, historians and philosophers grapple with the theoretical and practical implications. This article presents a selection of recent European and British policy and legal developments, and discusses how they are changing social practice and citizens' engagement with information rights.

Open and free internet-based platforms are seen as an enabler of global free expression, releasing writers from commercial and space constraints. However, many are working without the assistance of an in-house lawyer, or other legal resources. This may lead to undue suppression of public interest material, with important implications for freedom of expression and the democratic function of media. Two online surveys among digital and online journalists in England and Wales in 2013 indicated that the majority of encounters with defamation and privacy law take place outside the courts, with few formally recorded legal actions. This was particularly evident in a sample of 'hyperlocal' and local community publishers. In light of the results, this paper calls for a reappraisal of overly simplistic judicial and media applications of the 'chilling effect' doctrine, in order to expose its subjectivities and complexities. Additionally, attention needs to be paid to global and cross-jurisdictional media-legal environments, in order to help develop better internet policy and legal frameworks for protecting legitimate expression.

Open and free internet-based platforms are seen as an enabler of global free expression, releasing writers from commercial and space constraints. However, many are working without the assistance of an in-house lawyer, or other legal resources. This may lead to undue suppression of public interest material, with important implications for freedom of expression and the democratic function of media. Two online surveys among digital and online journalists in England and Wales in 2013 indicated that the majority of encounters with defamation and privacy law take place outside the courts, with few formally recorded legal actions. This was particularly evident in a sample of 'hyperlocal' and local community publishers. In light of the results, this paper calls for a reappraisal of overly simplistic judicial and media applications of the 'chilling effect' doctrine, in order to expose its subjectivities and complexities. Additionally, attention needs to be paid to global and cross-jurisdictional media-legal environments, in order to help develop better internet policy and legal frameworks for protecting legitimate expression.

This book examines how major but often under-scrutinised legal, social, and technological developments have affected the transparency and accountability of the criminal justice process. The book proposes a framework for open justice which prioritises public legal education and justice system accountability.

This book examines how major but often under-scrutinised legal, social, and technological developments have affected the transparency and accountability of the criminal justice process. The book proposes a framework for open justice which prioritises public legal education and justice system accountability.

A working report published as part of an initiative supported by Guardian News and Media, based on research conducted at the Information Law and Policy Centre, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Launched at an event in Parliament on 22nd February 2017.

AbstractJames Margach famously argued that Prime Ministers from Lloyd George to Callaghan had been intent on exploiting the media in their determination to centralise power. From Margaret Thatcher onwards, however, there is a strong argument that the power relationship has been reversed, and that the Leveson Inquiry—set up in the wake of the phone hacking scandal—exposed a political class which had become deeply fearful of the power and influence of the national press. Citing evidence to Leveson and subsequent recommendations by the inquiry, this article presents two case studies—on data protection and on media ownership—where the public interest clearly demanded political intervention, which would be inconvenient for the major publishers. And yet, despite recommendations by Lord Justice Leveson and despite clear support from leading politicians of all parties, there has been virtually no policy progress in either case. While the Leveson Inquiry was billed as a watershed in press–politician relations and an opportunity to counteract decades of unhealthy press power, political inertia in these two areas suggests that very little has changed.

The protection of national security has traditionally been an exception to general norms of public accountability. While prerogative powers were typically engaged, the last three decades have seen efforts to bring national security closer to the normal constitutional control mechanisms of parliament and the courts. The design of and changes to mechanisms of accountability have, however, been accepted without discussion of the often narrower purposes for which they were first established (most notably for oversight of surveillance), the extent of their departure from constitutional principles, or their impact in embedding new forms of exceptionalism in the constitutional framework. This article critically assesses these developments, prompted for example by the Law Commission's recommendations to reform Official Secrets law, which adopted models without full consideration of historical and contemporary concerns or the exceptionalism on which they were based. Though focused on the UK, our account provides a cautionary tale for national security law reform in any modern democracy.

The protection of national security has traditionally been an exception to general norms of public accountability. While prerogative powers were typically engaged, the last three decades have seen efforts to bring national security closer to the normal constitutional control mechanisms of parliament and the courts. The design of and changes to mechanisms of accountability have, however, been accepted without discussion of the often narrower purposes for which they were first established (most notably for oversight of surveillance), the extent of their departure from constitutional principles, or their impact in embedding new forms of exceptionalism in the constitutional framework. This article critically assesses these developments, prompted for example by the Law Commission's recommendations to reform official secrets laws, which adopted models without full consideration of historical and contemporary concerns or the exceptionalism on which they were based. Though focused on the UK, our account provides a cautionary tale for national security law reform in any modern democracy.

The protection of national security has traditionally been an exception to general norms of public accountability, based on prerogative powers. The last three decades have seen efforts to bring national security closer to the normal constitutional control mechanisms of parliament and the courts. The design of and changes to mechanisms of accountability have, however, been accepted without discussion of the often narrower purposes for which they were first established (most notably for oversight of surveillance), the extent of their departure from constitutional principles, or their impact in embedding new forms of exceptionalism in the constitutional framework. This article critically assesses these developments, prompted for example by the Law Commission's recommendations to reform official secrets laws, which adopted trusted intermediary and indirect accountability models without full consideration of historical and contemporary concerns or the exceptionalism on which they were based. Though focused on the UK, our account provides a cautionary tale for national security law reform in any modern democracy.