Just in case anyone believed that the publication of the
Leveson Report would cause the Fourth Estate to desist from its diet of
not-really-smearing-him-and-his-advisors-but-we-just-found-all-this-dirt-on-them-and-you-know-how-it-is,
the Maily Telegraph has decided to
demonstrate that, in the world of Tony Gallagher, there is still a need to put
the boot in and keep frightening the readers.
“Lord
Justice Leveson calls for new laws to curb 'mob rule' on the internet”
proclaimed the headline on the Tel
article, the sub-heading confirming this. So Leveson must have called for new
laws, then. But he has not. Not at all. No, there was no call for new laws, but
only observations on how the law may develop in the face of developments in
social media.
So what did Leveson actually say? “The established media broadly conforms to the law and, when they do
not, they are potentially liable under the law ... In so far as the internet is
concerned, there has been, and for many, there remains a perception that
actions do not have legal consequences ... There is not only a danger of trial
by Twitter, but also of an unending punishment, and no prospect of
rehabilitation, by Google ... Just as it took time for the wilder excesses of
the early penny press to be civilised, it will take time to civilise the internet
... [The internet] does not trade in gossip. It simply publishes it online,
conveys it on Facebook, uploads it onto Youtube, tweets and re-tweets it. It is
likely that new [legal norms] and new
laws will need to be developed”.
Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is a statement of
the bleeding obvious, not just for lawyers, but all participants in the world
of social media. The case of Alistair McAlpine demonstrated, if demonstration
were necessary, that merely being online does not put one beyond the law. But,
as Leveson points out, such things take time, and law develops and adapts to
the world ... over time.
What Leveson’s remarks are not is a call for new laws, or
for any other curb on social media. This is not only a cheap shot from the Telegraph, but devalues their
rather more interesting take on press regulation, that Young Dave may be
considering establishing
a new independent regulator by Royal Charter – as was done with the Bank Of
England and the BBC.
While the latter suggestion may indeed make the regulator
independent of Government, though, it also needs to be properly independent of
the press that it would monitor, and thus far that press has been mightily
reluctant to lose control over the regulatory process. By the strangest of
coincidences, the Tel piece manages
not to mention this. Not that they’re being selective with the facts, of
course.
At least in the latter
case, they’re not just making them up for effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment