There is little to suggest Lord Justice Leveson had any intention to make life yet more challenging for community media, but might the new Leveson press law do just that?
In the Leveson Report on the culture, practice and ethics of the press, of over 2000 pages and more than a million words, "community" and "media" do not appear anywhere together in that order. It is all about the mainstream press, its freedoms and its misdemeanors.
But the draft Royal Charter, in Schedule 4, paragraph 1, says:
" "relevant publisher" means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom: i. a newspaper or magazine containing news related material, or ii. a website containing news related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine)"
News bloggers are concerned that this could leave them open to exemplary damages if they have not subscribed to membership of a body designed by the mainstream press as an instrument for newspapers' self regulation. So should community media be worried too?
The rules on exemplary damages are in the Crime and Courts Bill which has completed its Third Reading in the House of Commons and now goes to back to the House of Lords. Those offering web-based news in connection with a licensed community radio or local TV service are explicitly excluded but internet only community media might want to take a closer look.
In the debate on Monday night, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said, a: "publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors - this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger - and whether that material is subject to editorial control". Whilst individual bloggers should be reassured by this three part test, it could well include someone operating a local or hyperlocal news website. Pressed on the issue, Miller said: "Student and not-for-profit community newspapers ... will not be caught", but she admitted that ultimately it will be for the courts to decide who is a 'relevant publisher'.
Meanwhile, in the amendment passed to the Crime and Courts Bill (New Clause 29) which contains this three part test there is no distinction between a profit making and not for profit business. It states " "relevant publisher" means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material (a) which is written by different authors, and (b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control. "
What an irony it would be if a public inquiry triggered by the wrong doings of Murdoch's vast media empire should add legal risks or regulatory costs to one of its true alternatives.
References:
Draft Royal Charter on Self Regulation of the Press
House of Commons debate, 18 March 2013
Consideration of Bill, Crime and Courts Bill (Lords), 18 March 2013 - New Clauses and New Schedules standing in the name of the Prime Minister and relating to press conduct
In the Leveson Report on the culture, practice and ethics of the press, of over 2000 pages and more than a million words, "community" and "media" do not appear anywhere together in that order. It is all about the mainstream press, its freedoms and its misdemeanors.
But the draft Royal Charter, in Schedule 4, paragraph 1, says:
" "relevant publisher" means a person (other than a broadcaster) who publishes in the United Kingdom: i. a newspaper or magazine containing news related material, or ii. a website containing news related material (whether or not related to a newspaper or magazine)"
News bloggers are concerned that this could leave them open to exemplary damages if they have not subscribed to membership of a body designed by the mainstream press as an instrument for newspapers' self regulation. So should community media be worried too?
The rules on exemplary damages are in the Crime and Courts Bill which has completed its Third Reading in the House of Commons and now goes to back to the House of Lords. Those offering web-based news in connection with a licensed community radio or local TV service are explicitly excluded but internet only community media might want to take a closer look.
In the debate on Monday night, Culture Secretary Maria Miller said, a: "publisher would have to meet the three tests of whether the publication is publishing news-related material in the course of a business, whether their material is written by a range of authors - this would exclude a one-man band or a single blogger - and whether that material is subject to editorial control". Whilst individual bloggers should be reassured by this three part test, it could well include someone operating a local or hyperlocal news website. Pressed on the issue, Miller said: "Student and not-for-profit community newspapers ... will not be caught", but she admitted that ultimately it will be for the courts to decide who is a 'relevant publisher'.
Meanwhile, in the amendment passed to the Crime and Courts Bill (New Clause 29) which contains this three part test there is no distinction between a profit making and not for profit business. It states " "relevant publisher" means a person who, in the course of a business (whether or not carried on with a view to profit), publishes news-related material (a) which is written by different authors, and (b) which is to any extent subject to editorial control. "
What an irony it would be if a public inquiry triggered by the wrong doings of Murdoch's vast media empire should add legal risks or regulatory costs to one of its true alternatives.
References:
Draft Royal Charter on Self Regulation of the Press
House of Commons debate, 18 March 2013
Consideration of Bill, Crime and Courts Bill (Lords), 18 March 2013 - New Clauses and New Schedules standing in the name of the Prime Minister and relating to press conduct
