Why it’s too early to panic about how the Royal Charter will affect blogging


2:19 pm - March 19th 2013

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

by Paul Bernal

One of the immediate reactions to the last minute deal over the implementation of the Leveson recommendations was that it would hit bloggers and tweeters very hard. I’m not sure that’s really true.

However, it will be quite some time before everything becomes clear, partly because the Royal Charter itself needs careful and detailed analysis and partly because it’s not just the Charter itself that matters, but the documents and guidelines that follow.

The Royal Charter is only part of the story. It sets out terms for a ‘recognition panel’ that ‘recognises’ regulators – it doesn’t set up the regulators themselves. As Cameron and others have been at pains to point out, the idea is that the ‘press’ sets up the regulator(s) itself.

We have yet to see what form any regulator the press sets up will take. It has to be good enough for the recognition panel to accept – that’s the key…

So what about bloggers?

Attention has been focused on Schedule 4 of the Royal Charter (which can be found here), which sets out two definitions:

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-related material” means:

i. news or information about current affairs;

ii. opinion about matters relating to the news or current affairs; or

iii. gossip about celebrities, other public figures or other persons in the news.”

This seems to have caused many people to panic – but you need to look a little further: in particular, what does it mean to say that I’m a ‘relevant publisher’?

On a quick review of the Royal Charter, all it appears to mean at present is whether I would be eligible to part of the ‘recognition’ panel, or employed by that recognition panel – part of the rules intended to keep the recognition panel independent of the press, one of the key parts of the Leveson recommendations.

We need to see more – the real details of how this will work have yet to emerge beyond the initial Royal Charter Draft. The fact that the definitions are there doesn’t mean much – though it could be a pointer as to the direction that the new regulatory regime is headed.

It may indeed be that the new scheme is intended to ‘regulate the web’ but it doesn’t do so yet.

What’s the difference between a newspaper’s website and a blog?

That’s the big question that has yet to be answered. There’s a clear difference between the Guardian Online and my little blog – but where do Conservative Home, Liberal Conspiracy and Guido’s Order Order fit into the spectrum? There were even rumours last year that the Guardian was going to abandon its ‘real’ paper and focus only on its online version. If they turn true, should the Guardian Online have been regulated as though it were a newspaper?

If the press is to be regulated at all – and the consensus between the political parties that lay behind yesterday’s deal suggests that non-regulation is not an option – then online newspapers that are effectively the same as ‘paper’ newspapers should have to be regulated too. Small blogs shouldn’t – and Cameron and others have been quick to say that social media won’t be covered, though quite how they bring that into action has yet to be seen. The difficulty lies in the greyer areas, and that’s where we have to be vigilant – the devil will be in the detail.

What about those huge fines?

The Charter actually says the body should have “…the power to impose appropriate and proportionate sanctions (including but not limited to financial sanctions up to 1% of turnover attributable to the publication concerned with a maximum of £1,000,000)…”

Appropriate and proportionate sanctions for a non-profit blogger would therefore be likely to be qualitative – remedies like proper and prominent apologies come to mind. The fining capability – the £1,000,000 that has made its way into press headlines – may mean something to big newspapers, but it’s effectively irrelevant to bloggers. We don’t have ‘turnovers’ of any significance – and big fines would (in general) be inappropriate and disproportionate.

…and anyway, blogs are already subject to the law

This is a key point that many seem to miss. This regulatory framework isn’t acting in a vacuum. Bloggers and tweeters are already subject to the law – to defamation law, to privacy law, to copyright law, to public order law, to laws concerning hate speech, to obscenity law. This framework would do nothing to change that. Those laws are complex and variably effective – and variably enforced.

Personally that’s what I’d be concerned about, much more than Leveson. The illiberality of the use of public order and related law on tweeters and bloggers is something that, for me, is far more dangerous a trend than anything this Royal Charter could bring about.

Personally, I wonder whether those who are against the regulation for their own reasons are just trying to scare bloggers and tweeters, and enlist them on their side. Not me. Not yet.


A longer version of this piece is here.
Paul Bernal is a lecturer in IT, IP and Media Law at UEA.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Law ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Yes, you’re right, let’s just keep shtum until the new regulator makes its mind up without our input, and the thing has been tested in the courts at the cost of someone’s career…

2. Northern Worker

I read through the whole thing on Guido Fawkes and the wording suggests all websites and blogs published in the UK will be covered. But then it seems to be the usual Cameron omnishambles because nobody seems to know. I guess the way out is to ‘publish overseas’ by moving the hosting of a blog to somewhere like the USA where free speech and freedom of the press are enshrined in the Constitution. It will probably take a court case to sort out whether this is not publishing in the UK even if the blogger is writing the stuff here.

This really is another shoddy piece of legislation. It might not even fly if all the newspaper editors stand together and refuse to sign up. It would be the worst ever publicity for Cameron to see the editor of the Times or others taken away in handcuffs shouting about censorship. All this just to protect a few D-list celebs (backed by billionaires) when their complaints are more than adequately covered by existing laws for phone tapping and libel.

What a complete and total mess!

3. Richard Carey

and when the hangman puts a noose round you’re neck, don’t panic, it may just be an organic hemp cravat.

4. Richard Carey

..apologies for shocking typo

5. Shinsei1967

“Why it’s too early to panic about how the Royal Charter will affect blogging”

And when (or if) it turns out that we should have panicked then it will, of course, be far too late.

I always feel the precautionary principle should be more widely heeded. Be very wary of meddling in things where you don’t have full confidence in their outcome.

There was indeed hyperbole when many anti-Levonsites claimed yesterday’s move was the death of democracy or freedom. However the similarly hyperbolic claims by the other side (which LC falls into) that it was all a fuss about nothing aren’t much better.

“Bloggers and tweeters are already subject to the law – to defamation law, to privacy law, to copyright law, to public order law, to laws concerning hate speech, to obscenity law.”

So is the press you know, yet that hasn’t stopped this attack on it.

Meanwhile a leading light of Hacked Off wants to “cut the wires” if bloggers misbehave…

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/19/max-mosley_n_2906532.html?1363698574

Just f****** great.

7. Shinsei1967

cjcj

That has always rather been my view. Pretty much all the disgraceful things the press got up to over the last few years have been illegal.

It’s all very well to say that there was a “culture of bad behaviour” but that was only because no one was caught or prosecuted for phone hacking, no one was prosecuted for harrassment, no one was prosecuted for bribing police for stories etc etc.

8. Shatterface

Yesterday’s ‘Victory for Milliband’ is apparently now ‘Cameron’s Omnishambles’.

24 hours is a long time in journalism.

There’s a good post here which indicates that it won’t:

http://niaccurshi.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/levesons-royal-charter-not-blog.html

Excellent article. The hysteria and misinformation about what’s proposed is being spread deliberately by those interested in maintaining the poisonous status-quo.

The blog jurisdiction issues are not unlike England’s alleged global reach for libel law istm, which is down to a tinpot legal system in this area of law and very silly judges.

What *is* concerning is how various behind the scenes lobbyists, without disclosure of supporters etc, in th e persons of Hacked Off, have managed to suborn our political system and insert themselves into the process.

That comes under the heading “sinister”.

You’re all looking in the wrong place. It’s the Crimes and Courts bill that contains the important definition of ‘relevant publisher’, since that’s what determines who is subject to one-way costs shifting and exemplary damages unless they join a recognised regulator. It hasn’t been updated yet on the Parliament website, but you can find the amendments that passed the Commons yesterday dealing with who is a ‘relevant publisher’ here, pages 1048-51:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0137/amend/pbc1371803m.pdf

Those criteria seem quite badly drafted to me, and could plausibly be amended, but a blog that is not a business does not count, so this site and most others like it will not.

Matt W – you don’t understand.

We LIKE Hacked Off.
And, more to the point, we DON”T LIKE Mr Murdoch.

That existing laws are perfectly adequate – the current hacking probe is the largest police operation in history – is irrelevant.

Will there almost certainly be UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES?
Who cares, eh?

Re 12: I do know about the different versions of the definition – the longer version of this blog, on my own website, deals with the Crime and Courts Bill version of the ‘relevant publisher’ definition…

You can find this blog here:

http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/leveson-bloggers-and-the-royal-charter/


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Press regulation deal WON’T stifle bloggers | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] a start, as Paul Bernal points out, the specific guidelines and details still have to be worked out. Looking at the draft Royal […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.