Companion website for
COMPARATIVE MEDIA LAW & ETHICS
by TIM CROOK
Published by Routledge on 15th December 2009
For details of the book, please visit Routledge.
Author's profile at Goldsmiths, University of London
MEDIA LAW BULLETINS
Friday 20th November 2009:
Students of media law in Britain, and certainly the country’s professional media communicators, can be forgiven for thinking that there is a bewildering state of confusion in the situation of the country's media law rights. It would be fair to say uncertainty, insecurity and constant change on a week by week basis seems to be a fair description of the state of affairs. Read more...
Tuesday 15th December 2009:
I am curious to know if media publisher editors in the United Kingdom are prepared to concede that the mother country of common law has become the land of judicial censorship. It is certainly the home of privacy injunctions gagging media coverage of the infidelity and alleged moral infractions of home-grown and global celebrity. And the very existence of these court orders and the celebrocrats protected are also censored by ‘superinjunctions.’ Read more...
Tuesday 26th January 2010:
The national British media showed in January 2010 that it has no stomach or professional desire to assert the open justice in the principle of a criminal court identifying young children who commit the most heinous of crimes. Instead in the case of the Edlington 10 and 11-year-old ‘sadistic torturers’, it was the parents of the victims and a local Sheffield based newspaper who unsuccessfully asked Mr Justice Keith to lift the anonymity granted under section 39 of the 1933 Children and Young Person’s Act. Read more...
Friday 12th February 2010:
On Wednesday 10th February 2010, England’s Court of Appeal Civil Division presented a ruling of enormous constitutional and historical importance. The assertion of the rule of law and open justice by three of the country’s most senior judges has generated a debate. Is the executive accepting that their position was wrong in law? Whilst they are aiming their criticism at the interpretation put on the ruling, is it possible their rhetoric might be seen as implicit criticism of the judges concerned? Read more...
