This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/31/lib-dems-to-propose-law-protecting-journalism-from-state-interference
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Lib Dems to propose law protecting journalism from state interference | Lib Dems to propose law protecting journalism from state interference |
| (2 days later) | |
| A right to protect journalism from state interference and an end to ministers appointing the heads of broadcasting regulators are set to be proposed by the Liberal Democrats in a new “first amendment”-style charter on press freedom to be outlined in the party’s manifesto. | A right to protect journalism from state interference and an end to ministers appointing the heads of broadcasting regulators are set to be proposed by the Liberal Democrats in a new “first amendment”-style charter on press freedom to be outlined in the party’s manifesto. |
| The Lib Dem policy document is expected to suggest there should be a new statutory recognition of journalism so that newspapers and other media are not required to rely solely on the freedom of expression rights as spelled out under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. | The Lib Dem policy document is expected to suggest there should be a new statutory recognition of journalism so that newspapers and other media are not required to rely solely on the freedom of expression rights as spelled out under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. |
| Related: Lobbying by charities needs the protection of the law | Letters | |
| It has been argued by some media organisations that article 10 does not hold the same weight as first amendment of the American constitution, which states that it is illegal for the US Congress to pass any law “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. | It has been argued by some media organisations that article 10 does not hold the same weight as first amendment of the American constitution, which states that it is illegal for the US Congress to pass any law “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. |
| Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. The wording, it is argued, reduces journalists’ right to resist those seeking injunctions to prevent publication. | Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. The wording, it is argued, reduces journalists’ right to resist those seeking injunctions to prevent publication. |
| The proposed package is also expected to include: | The proposed package is also expected to include: |
| There would also be stronger defences for whistleblowers sending information to MPs and doctors. | There would also be stronger defences for whistleblowers sending information to MPs and doctors. |
| The package is also expected to include a statutory public interest defence so that police officers cannot access a journalist’s phone records to discover the identity of a source without judicial oversight, after it emerged that the phone records of Sun journalist Tom Newton Dunn had been obtained without his consent by police investigating the Plebgate saga. | The package is also expected to include a statutory public interest defence so that police officers cannot access a journalist’s phone records to discover the identity of a source without judicial oversight, after it emerged that the phone records of Sun journalist Tom Newton Dunn had been obtained without his consent by police investigating the Plebgate saga. |
| The proposed Liberal Democrat protections go further than those proposed by Tories in February since there would be a requirement for a journalist to be notified that the police were seeking a court application to look at their phone records. | The proposed Liberal Democrat protections go further than those proposed by Tories in February since there would be a requirement for a journalist to be notified that the police were seeking a court application to look at their phone records. |
| In the conclusion of his inquiry into press standards in 2012, Sir Brian Leveson proposed that it would only be lawful to interfere with the media “insofar as it is for a legitimate purpose and is necessary in a democratic society”. But his idea was rejected by rightwing newspaper groups opposed to what they argued was statutory regulation of the press. | In the conclusion of his inquiry into press standards in 2012, Sir Brian Leveson proposed that it would only be lawful to interfere with the media “insofar as it is for a legitimate purpose and is necessary in a democratic society”. But his idea was rejected by rightwing newspaper groups opposed to what they argued was statutory regulation of the press. |
| Lib Dem sources suggested that introducing a broader fundamental right to protection for journalism might, for instance, make it more difficult for members of the security services to be able to require newspapers to smash up computers containing classified information leaked by whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor – as happened to the Guardian. | Lib Dem sources suggested that introducing a broader fundamental right to protection for journalism might, for instance, make it more difficult for members of the security services to be able to require newspapers to smash up computers containing classified information leaked by whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor – as happened to the Guardian. |
| At the weekend Clegg presaged some of the proposals in the Liberal Democrat package saying he wanted reform of the laws on public interest defence. | At the weekend Clegg presaged some of the proposals in the Liberal Democrat package saying he wanted reform of the laws on public interest defence. |
| Clegg said the current laws “are just far too opaque, in too many of our laws, exactly what is the strength and nature of a public interest defence. | Clegg said the current laws “are just far too opaque, in too many of our laws, exactly what is the strength and nature of a public interest defence. |
| “I would like to see that clarified in law, my party has always advocated that. The fact that prosecutors are relying on 13th-century laws, that we don’t have an up-to-date definition of what a public interest defence is, shows the need for a proper review and a proper reform of the law in this area.” | “I would like to see that clarified in law, my party has always advocated that. The fact that prosecutors are relying on 13th-century laws, that we don’t have an up-to-date definition of what a public interest defence is, shows the need for a proper review and a proper reform of the law in this area.” |
| Clegg played a critical role in the compromise forged on Leveson’s proposals in 2013 including a press regulator set up under the auspices of a recognition body established by royal charter. The manifesto states it will revisit Leveson’s proposals in autumn 2016, after the new press regulator’s recognition panel has been in position for a year, to assess whether the regulatory system proposed by Leveson is functioning. | Clegg played a critical role in the compromise forged on Leveson’s proposals in 2013 including a press regulator set up under the auspices of a recognition body established by royal charter. The manifesto states it will revisit Leveson’s proposals in autumn 2016, after the new press regulator’s recognition panel has been in position for a year, to assess whether the regulatory system proposed by Leveson is functioning. |
| At present newspapers have set up their own independent regulator independent of the recognition panel, Ipso, set up by royal charter. Its effectiveness is a matter of dispute, and is not supported by every national newspaper. | At present newspapers have set up their own independent regulator independent of the recognition panel, Ipso, set up by royal charter. Its effectiveness is a matter of dispute, and is not supported by every national newspaper. |