Leveson, A little light reading ? Options

[lordtup]

Firstly let me apologise for not supplying the " normal " link . It is something I have yet to master though my contemporary's inform me it is straight forward enough .
Anyway to topic Tup . The long awaited Leveson enquiry is available to those who find War and Peace a little short on content . I have not read it nor intend to but the crux of the matter seems to be freedom of speech and whether we wish to forgo that privilege in order to protect individuals from press intrusion .
Before we all scramble to the top of the moral high ground let's just reflect on what we are wishing for . Firstly , though not necessarily first in importance , is that this forum would disappear , the Daily Press would become even more down market ( is that possible ? ) and Twitter would quickly become a thing of the past ( ) ; if Parliament does decide to impose control .
Meanwhile the very things that were at the heart of the matter , phone tapping , would continue in subterfuge . Phone tapping is , and has always been , a criminal offence unless sanctioned by the Home Secretary so why the police have chosen to turn a blind eye poses a more serious question .

I agree that some of the " victims " should feel justifiably aggrieved as I would in their circumstances but they are in a minority . I have little sympathy for the so called " celebrity" , especially when their relationship with the press is so intertwined .

The " publish and be damned " has long been the ruling for investigative journalism , sometimes it goes wrong and the author has to stand up and admit so but it should never be an obstacle to exposing those story's that need to be aired.

I suspect that after the initial posturing nothing will change but I for one will watch with interest .

[blackdog]

I have to admit that I can't see where freedom of speech or freedom of the press is particularly threatened.

There are already plenty of laws inhibiting both freedoms - the main problem being that the press are able to print what is essentially libellous in the knowledge that they are essentially immune from penalty, either because the fines imposed are peanuts or their victim does not have the resources to sue them through our ludicrously expensive legal system.

Other aspects of press behaviour such as phone 'tapping' and bribing the police are illustrative of the press belief that they were above the law. However, these are already illegal activities so there is no need for a new law there, just a means of increasing the chance of the press being caught, prosecuted and subjected to penalties that act as a real deterrent.

The Press Complaints Commission is a farce, some sort of means of redress that evens up the imbalance of power between the press and their victims is needed.

The biggest problem with control of the press is the lack of any sensible definition of the 'public interest'.

What does worry me are some of these prosecutions for tweets that are 'liable to cause offence' are taking things too far.

[user23]

Leveson specifically said that his report didn't cover Facebook and Twitter, and one would surmise from that, Internet chat boards such as this too.

Anyone claiming it does is either scaremongering or hasn't read it, or a decent summary of it.

[Andy Capp]

Leveson specifically said that his report didn't cover Facebook and Twitter, and one would surmise from that, Internet chat boards such as this too. Anyone claiming it does is either scaremongering or hasn't read it, or a decent summary of it.

I wonder if anti terrorism laws were meant to cover hecklers at Labour Party conferences too.

[user23]

I wonder if anti terrorism laws were meant to cover hecklers at Labour Party conferences too.

What's your point?

[Andy Capp]

What's your point?

Laws can be misused, even by the authorities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/se...nference.labour

[x2lls]

Laws can be misused, even by the authorities.

Quite!!


User23, this is AC's 'point'/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/333...bin-crimes.html

[user23]

Laws can be misused, even by the authorities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/se...nference.labour

But the Government, or at least the major party in the Government, are arguing against creating a new law.

[Jayjay]

But the Government, or at least the major party in the Government, are arguing against creating a new law.

It will be a change in practice not law. For instance, the data that proved MP's were stealing their expenses was stolen and taken to the media. It is practice for the media to refuse to name the source thus protecting him from prosecution for theft. Now they have to 'give up' their sources which may impact on investigative journalism.

[Andy Capp]

But the Government, or at least the major party in the Government, are arguing against creating a new law.

Yes, which is why I posted as such. Your post implied that we shouldn't be worried about new laws, as people might be scaremongering their potential effects.

[Exhausted]

The whole premise of phone hacking or tapping that the newspapers indulged in is not quite what is normally understood by those terms. Becuase of the high profile and the reaction to it, the people with the moral high ground would have it that they were listening in to private conversations on mobiles or reading their text messages, which with todays technology would be almost impossible, or actually tapping private phones. None of this happened but because phone users had not protected their messages with a password, the bad guys had been picking up messages left for them.
Not good, but not enough, in my opinion, for the hysteria surrounding the claims. I am sure that the lawyers have made as much money as those damaged by the results. My belief though is that the government bigged up the whole thing so that they could bring in swingeing new rules to eventually suppress our freedom of speech and prevent the population from commenting on or being critical of their actions while they are in power.
Make the most of this forum, it may be impossible to have it soon other than to query the price of eggs.

[user23]

The whole premise of phone hacking or tapping that the newspapers indulged in is not quite what is normally understood by those terms. Becuase of the high profile and the reaction to it, the people with the moral high ground would have it that they were listening in to private conversations on mobiles or reading their text messages, which with todays technology would be almost impossible, or actually tapping private phones. None of this happened but because phone users had not protected their messages with a password, the bad guys had been picking up messages left for them.
Not good, but not enough, in my opinion, for the hysteria surrounding the claims. I am sure that the lawyers have made as much money as those damaged by the results. My belief though is that the government bigged up the whole thing so that they could bring in swingeing new rules to eventually suppress our freedom of speech and prevent the population from commenting on or being critical of their actions while they are in power.
Make the most of this forum, it may be impossible to have it soon other than to query the price of eggs.

As I said before, the government, or at least the largest party that forms part of the government don't want to bring in new laws, it's the opposition and victims of press intrusion that are lobbying for it. Leveson also specifically said that his report didn't cover Twitter and Facebook, by which we can probably safely assume internet forums.

You can already get quite a few years in prison for posting stuff on the internet. Leveson won't change this.

You should really read up on the facts before scaremongering like this. It only detracts from the forum and discredits opinion posted on it.

[lordtup]

As I said before, the government, or at least the largest party that forms part of the government don't want to bring in new laws, it's the opposition and victims of press intrusion that are lobbying for it. Leveson also specifically said that his report didn't cover Twitter and Facebook, by which we can probably safely assume internet forums.

You can already get quite a few years in prison for posting stuff on the internet. Leveson won't change this.

You should really read up on the facts before scaremongering like this. It only detracts from the forum and discredits opinion posted on it.

Let us resume this debate , in say five years time , if the law is changed .
I can't say with any conviction that the written word will be suppressed any more than you can state categorically that it won't . What I do know is that the left , yes the left , hand side of the political spectrum would love to control our lives in whatever form is available .

Time will tell.

[Berkshirelad]

Meanwhile the very things that were at the heart of the matter , phone tapping , would continue in subterfuge . Phone tapping is , and has always been , a criminal offence unless sanctioned by the Home Secretary so why the police have chosen to turn a blind eye poses a more serious question .

My suspicion would be that the Police have not turned a blind eye - as there was no phone tapping.

There was phone hacking - which in simple terms means remotely picking up somebody's phone messages by dialling the machine and entering the code to unlock the messages.

I don't see anybody attaching some blame to the people who were 'hacked' for being totally stupid and not changing their access code from the factory default. Not a lot different, IMO, from trying to explain that leaving the front door unlocked was not a contributory factor to being burgled.

[blackdog]

My suspicion would be that the Police have not turned a blind eye - as there was no phone tapping.

There was phone hacking - which in simple terms means remotely picking up somebody's phone messages by dialling the machine and entering the code to unlock the messages.

I don't see anybody attaching some blame to the people who were 'hacked' for being totally stupid and not changing their access code from the factory default. Not a lot different, IMO, from trying to explain that leaving the front door unlocked was not a contributory factor to being burgled.

If you never cross a road you will never be mown down by an incompetent motorist in the middle of the road. I hadn't realised that by failing to take such a simple precaution such incidents were the pedestrian's fault.

The blame does not lie with the victims - the newspapers were invading peoples privacy, just as if they walked into your house and read your mail. If someone did that in my house I wouldn't be too happy, whether the door was open or not.

[Darren]

The blame does not lie with the victims - the newspapers were invading peoples privacy, just as if they walked into your house and read your mail. If someone did that in my house I wouldn't be too happy, whether the door was open or not.

Which, just like accessing someone else's voicemail is a criminal offence.

The press have for far too long shouted about self-regulation and 'freedom of the press' and used the same to hide behind when they get things wrong, badly wrong and to h.e.l.l. with the consequences. The case of Christopher Jefferies being a perfect example.

I doubt anything will change. Lord Justice Leveson has criticised politicians for being too close to the press. Cameron initially promised to implement the recommendation provided they were not "bonkers". Now flip-flop'ing without saying what is "bonkers". Most likely Murdoch has some juicy dirt.

[Andy Capp]

As I said before, the government, or at least the largest party that forms part of the government don't want to bring in new laws, it's the opposition and victims of press intrusion that are lobbying for it. Leveson also specifically said that his report didn't cover Twitter and Facebook, by which we can probably safely assume internet forums.

You can already get quite a few years in prison for posting stuff on the internet. Leveson won't change this.

You should really read up on the facts before scaremongering like this. It only detracts from the forum and discredits opinion posted on it.

The emboldened text would suggest you are not sure yourself. I don't see it as scaremongering at all. I see it as expressing legitimate concerns.

It reminds me of an expression I heard the other day: 'Panic early, panic often.'

[Cognosco]

The emboldened text would suggest you are not sure yourself. I don't see it as scaremongering at all. I see it as expressing legitimate concerns.

It reminds me of an expression I heard the other day: 'Panic early, panic often.'

Especially when politicians and Media Barons are concerned.